Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relative to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 84, line 1, at beginning, insert ' One clear day.'

Standing Order 120, line 8, after 'on,' insert ' the … Bill or on.'

Line 11, after first 'in,' insert 'the said Bill or.'

Line 12, leave out from 'Group,' to 'and,' in line 15.

Standing Order 129, line 13, at end, insert ' provided that any such petition may be printed, lithographed, typewritten, or written by hand.'

Line 14, after ' Provided,' insert ' also.'

Line 33, leave out from ' than,' to end of Order, and insert ' the tenth day after that on which the Bill was read the first time.'

Standing Order 132, line 6, leave out' from time to time.'

Standing Order 141, line 7, leave out from 'Committee,' to end of Order.

Standing Order 144, line 3, leave out ' either.'

Line 4, leave out from ' House,' to ' shall,' in line 5.

Standing Order 163, line 5, leave out 'presented by being.'

Line 8, leave out ' one clear,' and insert ' the second.'

Line 10, leave out ' determination,' and insert ' Report.'

Line 24, leave out ' presented by being.

Line 27, leave out ' one clear,' and insert 'the second.'

Line 30, leave out ' whichever is the later,' and insert—

'Provided that if such leave be given before the first day in February upon which the House sits, the Bill shall be laid on the Table of the House on that day or within the two days following.'

Line 30, after ' and,' insert ' that.'

Standing Order 166, line 4, leave out from ' laid,' to ' and,' in line 5.

Line 5, leave out ' Votes,' and insert ' Journal of the House.'

Line 6, leave out 'and ordered.'

Standing Order 170, line 9, leave out from ' that,' to end of Order, and insert ' the seventh day after the date of the Examiner's Report, or, if the Examiner has reported that the Standing Orders have not been complied with or has made a Special Report under Standing Order 79, after the day on which the House gives leave to the parties to proceed with the Bill or agrees to a Resolution reported from the Standing Orders Committee that the Standing Orders have been complied with.'

Standing Order 190, line 7, leave out from ' to' to end of line 9, and insert ' that the Bill shall be set down in the Private Business List for the next day on which the House shall sit.'

Standing Order 204, line 6, after ' Bill, insert ' not less than one clear day's.'

Line 7, leave out from ' Office,' to end of Order.

Standing Order 217, line 15, leave out 'seven clear days after,' and insert 'the seventh day after that on which.'

Line 16, leave out ' has been,' and insert 'is.'

Line 20, leave out from ' than,' to end of line 22, and insert ' the tenth day after that on which the Bill was read the first time.'

Standing Order 220, line 35, leave out ' presented,' and insert ' laid on the Table of the House.'

Line 36, leave out 'after the First Reading.'

Table of Fees, page 253, line 4, leave out from first 'Committee,' to 'shall,' in line 5, and insert ' on an opposed Bill.'

Line 6, leave out from 'which,' to ' shall,' in line 7, and insert ' a Committee on an Unopposed Bill.'"

I need not detain the House for more than a moment or two over these Amendments, which are mainly of a drafting nature. However, I should perhaps draw the attention of hon. Members to three points

The Amendment to Standing Order 141 will have the effect of reducing the burden on chairmen of Private Bill Committees in signing the committee copy of a Private Bill. At present chairmen have the duty to initial each page upon which an Amendment has been made. The new Standing Order requires a signature to be given only at the end of a Bill and an initial to each new Clause.

The Amendment to Standing Order 84 will ensure that details of the Amendments to be proposed by the promoters


before Unopposed Bill Committees will be available for perusal two days before the Committee meets instead of the one day only.

There are also Amendments which clear up one or two obscurities relating to the use of the term "clear days" in the Standing Orders.

Question put, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Benefits (Transfers)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many names have been transferred from the register of unemployed people to the register of people drawing sickness benefit in each of the quarters during which the National Insurance Act has been in operation, to the latest available date.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The number of claims for unemployment benefit disallowed on the ground that the claimant is not capable of work is about 850 a quarter. These numbers are small in relation to the total number of persons changing from unemployment to sickness benefit in normal course. No statistics of such transfers are available.

Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain districts the statement is being made that these figures are being "cooked," that people are being transferred from the one register to the other in order to make the employment situation in this country look better than it really is? Would he give the direct lie to that propaganda?

Mr. Griffiths: The fact of the matter is that under the old scheme it often paid men better to go on unemployment benefit than on sickness benefit. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House will have had experience of men who badgered their doctors saying, "Please say I am fit for work so that I can get unemployment benefit at the higher rate." Now the benefit rates are the same, and this is in the interests of the men themselves.

Public Assistance

Major Bruce: asked the Minister of National Insurance what was the average number of people drawing basic public assistance in Great Britain for the years 1919–23, 1935–39 and 1945–49. respectively.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many non-contributory old age pensioners are receiving additional financial help from the Public Assistance Board in the Manchester City area.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am having prepared such information as is available and will write to the hon. Members as soon as possible.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: In view of the fact that there are a considerable number of old age pensioners on the contributory list who are compelled at present to go to public assistance, would the right hon. Gentleman consider some means of increasing the basic pension so that they will not be forced to do so?

Mr. Griffiths: That is another question.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when it is that he is likely to have this rather important information available, and in what form he proposes to publish it?

Mr. Griffiths: One hon. Member asked me for some figures a fortnight ago and he has had them well over a week ago. We are preparing these figures now. If any hon. Member would like to have them circulated, perhaps he would put a Question down and I will have them circulated.

Mr. H. Hynd: Would my right hon. Friend publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT as a result of these Questions?

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Members who asked the Questions desire that, certainly I will do so.

Dockyard Workers, Foreign Stations

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he proposes to take in order to ensure that employees in His Majesty's Dockyards do not lose their National Insurance and Pension rights when serving at foreign


stations, in view of the fact that during such times, no National Insurance contributions are paid either by them or by the Admiralty on their behalf.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Workers sent abroad to His Majesty's Dockyards are generally covered by the new scheme. I have consulted my noble Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is not aware of any general difficulty in the application of the scheme in this respect. My noble Friend and I are looking into an individual case, particulars of which have been supplied by my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Middleton: I understand that when men go abroad in this way their benefits are continued for only one year and then they have to pay as non-employed people. Would it not be better for the Admiralty in those circumstances to continue paying throughout in order that these men might be maintained in full insurance?

Mr. Griffiths: That is a matter for my noble Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I am discussing this individual case with him and will take the opportunity of discussing the matter generally.

Mrs. Middleton: I would like to say that I put this Question down to the Admiralty because I wanted to put that point to them.

Temporary Staff (Dismissals)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he has taken to ensure that temporary civil servants in his Department, who are deemed to be redundant, are safeguarded against unfair charges of inefficiency as a ground for their dismissal when, in fact, they are dismissed on grounds of redundancy.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Any officer who is reported as inefficient is given particulars in writing and has a right to an interview with a senior officer, at which he may be accompanied by a friend or a representative of his staff association. In practically all cases a trial on fresh duties is arranged before a final decision is taken. These arrangements are in accordance with standard practice agreed with the recognised staff associations.

Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from time to time persons are told that they are dismissed on the ground that they are redundant and there is no further need for them; that on one particular occasion a person who had completed seven years' satisfactory service as a temporary clerk received on the same day as the notice of redundancy a notice to say that she was inefficient, even though a month previously she had been recommended for the establishment examination; and will the right hon. Gentleman see that things of that sort do not happen in his Department?

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me particulars of that case. All cases are dealt with in accordance with the arrangements with the staff associations.

Assistance Scales (Cost of Living)

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he has considered the communication from the National Assistance Board concerning a review of the National Assistance Regulations in view of the rising cost of living; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Austin: asked the Minister of National Insurance what changes in the regulations relating to the National Assistance Board scales are proposed by his Department.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am informed by the Board that they have sent a letter in reply to representations made to them by my hon. Friends on 7th December. The Board do not think that the change in prices since the present rates of assistance were approved by Parliament last year is sufficient to justify them at present in submitting fresh draft regulations to me. The Board are, however, continuing to watch the position closely.

Mr. Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great disquiet throughout the country, as is indicated by Questions on the Order Paper from time to time, about the suffering of these people who cannot make ends meet because of the increased cost of living; and will he, along with officials of his Department and the Assistance Board, consider this matter very seriously?

Mr. Griffiths: The Board have considered this matter very carefully on representations made by my hon. Friend and several others of my hon. Friends. I have given the Board's considered reply, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Austin: But in view of the fact that the Board are either unaware or unconcerned about the great hardship and distress caused through the rising cost of living, would my right hon. Friend recommend to the Board an increase of 10 per cent. in these scales, which would cost only about £10 million a year?

Mr. Griffiths: I would not accept the view of my hon. Friend that the Board are either unaware or unconcerned. Since they took over the administration of National Assistance in 1948, the Board have done a very good job indeed.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many old people in areas like Lancashire, which were depressed before the war, have no savings and have only these scales on which to live, and as they were already inadequate before devaluation will he treat their review as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Griffiths: I have said that the Board are looking at them. My experience—I believe the Board will confirm it—is that there are still a number of people who are not applying to the Board for assistance, and I think that those are the hard cases. Very often people do not apply because they feel it is undignified to do so. I hope that Members in every part of the House will encourage such people to apply.

Mr. Assheton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rising cost of living gives anxiety on all sides of the House?

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that. I am also aware of what this Government have done for the old people.

Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are in much closer touch with these old people than are the members of the Board, and that the best thing I can suggest to the Minister is that the members of the Board should give a month's trial to living on the allowance?

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Do we understand the Minister to say that there has not been a sufficient rise in the cost

of living to ensure a rise in the corresponding rates of assistance?

Mr. Griffiths: I had better repeat my original answer:
The Board do not think that the change in prices since the present rates of assistance were approved by Parliament last year is sufficient to justify them at present in submitting fresh draft regulations to me. The Board are, however, continuing to watch the position closely.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that, whatever the National Assistance Board have decided, it is physically impossible at present for a person to live on 26s. a week?

Mr. Griffiths: The Board have power under the regulations to supplement the allowances.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Were not the Board appointed to avoid political capital being made out of the sufferings of these people?

Mr. Griffiths: The Board were appointed, of course, to administer the scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Holidays with Pay, Bedford

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of insured workers in Bedford who received holidays with pay in 1939 and 1949, respectively.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I regret that information is not available in respect of particular areas.

Industry (Restrictive Practices)

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the Government's continued exhortations to those in industry for increased productivity and lower costs, he will give a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or in the form of a White Paper, of all restrictive practices of trade unions and employers which are adversely affecting production and costs.

Mr. Isaacs: There is no such list as that referred to by the hon. and gallant Member nor would it be practicable to compile one.

Major Lloyd: Could not the Minister do anything about these continued restrictive practices in view of the clamorous and almost pathetic appeals for more production and reductions in the cost of production? Do not the Government know that these restrictive practices are standing in the way of their objectives? Why will the Government do nothing about them—are they afraid?

Mr. Isaacs: Why does not the hon. and gallant Member put down the Question he wants answered? I have answered the Question on the Order Paper. The hon. and gallant Member asked for a list. There is no such list. I said that it is not practicable to prepare one, and so far as restrictive practices are concerned, a great number of them have been "put up." If those who throw the stones at the trade unions would recognise what the unions have done in this connection and what they are still prepared to continue to do, they would be a little more generous.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question does not refer only to trade unions, and why does he make political capital out of it?

Mr. Isaacs: Why does not the hon. and gallant Member, in making his allegations, make it more clear exactly what he is saying? It is true that the Question refers to restrictive practices by employers. The House should already be aware from the information given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that we have asked the employers' organisations and the trade unions to examine these matters. They are doing so, and I think they are having a job to find the practices.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the policy of the Government remains what it was in the White Paper of 1947: namely, to do everything to get rid of these practices, on whatever side of industry they exist?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, and it is for that reason that some time ago we asked the National Joint Advisory Council to conduct an inquiry. They made preliminary investigations and got together some data which they are examining I

understand that they are likely to report to me early in the New Year. We are still trying, therefore, to remove any objectionable practices on either side.

Mr. Awbery: When my right hon. Friend has this list of restrictive practices exercised both by the trade unions and by employers, no doubt he will be in a better position to answer the Question

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Mass Radiography

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent mass radiography is now used for the diagnosis of tuberculosis.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Over 300,000 chest examinations have been carried out by mass radiography since 1944. In the last year for which figures are available, up to 30th June, 1949, over 97,000 examinations were made as a result of which 670 persons were found to have active tuberculosis.

School Places

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of extra school children for whom he will need to find extra places in 1950, 1951 and 1952; and what steps he is taking to meet the need for additional accommodation.

Mr. Woodburn: The total school roll will not rise in 1950; it will rise by approximately 16,000 in 1951 and by a further 24,000 in 1952. Not all of these additional children will require additional places; in many country areas the necessary places are already there. The precise needs for each area must be determined by the education authority, with whom the responsibility for erecting the necessary schools rests. I have asked all authorities to review their needs and to draw up revised building programmes for the years in question; it is hoped that the labour and materials required can be made available within the limits imposed by the capital investment programme.

Mr. Rankin: When my right hon. Friend gets the necessary information from the local authorities will an opportunity be given to the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss any recommendations before they are put into operation?

Mr. Woodburn: It is, of course, the duty of the education authorities to go ahead with the building of schools so far as is possible. The Scottish Grand Committee will in due course have an opportunity of discussing this matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When the Secretary of State talks of the limits of labour and material that will be available, can he give an assurance that no labour and material will be diverted from the housing programme?

Mr. Woodburn: That is rather difficult, because quite clearly if the whole of the building trade of the country is fully occupied the production of one type of building can be increased only at the expense of some other type.

Commander Galbraith: Has not the Secretary of State assured the House previously that the building programme will continue as at present?

Mr. Woodburn: The building of houses will continue as at present. The point is that if schools are to he built, that may prevent an increase in the number of houses beyond what is contained in the present programme.

National Health Service (Doctors)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of general practitioners who are acting as assistants under the National Health Service scheme; and the number who are principals.

Mr. Woodburn: At 1st October, 1949, the number of assistants was approximately 250, and the number of principals was 2,411.

Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has any evidence that assistants are finding it difficult to become principals?

Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir. There has not been much change since the introduction of the service.

Hospitals, Western Region

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of hospital beds taken over from Glasgow Corporation and the voluntary hospitals in Glasgow, respectively, by the

Western Regional Board; the number of staff, medical, pharmacists, clerical, etc., formerly employed by the corporation; and the number of additional staff, in similar categories, now required.

Mr. Woodburn: The numbers of beds are, respectively, 13,000 and 4,200 in round figures. The policy of the National Health Service is to develop an integrated hospital service with the smaller hospitals associated with the larger ones so as to raise the general quality of all hospital services to that of the best. The Glasgow hospitals have therefore been regrouped and it is impossible to obtain comparable figures for all grades of staff employed in the former corporation hospitals at 5th July, 1948, and today. Because of the new policy a larger specialist staff is now available at the former corporation hospitals and the part-time nursing staff has increased by some 170.

Mr. Scollan: Does the larger specialist staff mean that the ordinary practitioner who formerly gave his services to the hospital has now become a specialist?

Mr. Woodburn: No. It means that these other hospitals are now available for the carrying out of operations, and the specialists can be there in attendance

Distributive Trades

Mr. M. MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the very large proportion of the working population engaged in the distributive trades, he will consider including in the 1949 White Paper on industry and employment a section dealing with these trades.

Mr. Woodburn: The distributive trades cover a wide range of economic activities and the information available to the Government about them is limited. For this reason a Census of Distribution is to be taken in 1951 and when its results are known, consideration will be given to the inclusion of further details about these trades and about the value of their services in the White Paper on industry and employment in Scotland.

Housing, Highlands and Islands

Mr. MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the official announcement in May last with


regard to arrangements made by him under Section 77 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, for providing assistance by way of grants towards the erection and improvement of dwelling-houses and other buildings for landholders and cottars in the Highlands and Islands, he will state the number of applications for grants which have been received, the number of grants which have been approved, and the number of cases in which the work of rebuilding and improvement is now in progress.

Mr. Woodburn: One thousand one hundred and twenty-three applications have been received. Consideration of applications involves correspondence with landowners and county councils followed by local inspections and it has not been possible to approve more than 64 applications so far. I hope, however, that a very much larger number will be approved before the end of the winter but I regret that I cannot state the number of cases in which work has actually commenced.

Mr. MacLeod: I presume by that reply that the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the speed of this excellent scheme? Will he make sure that the scheme is not postponed or delayed because of our present financial difficulties?

Mr. Woodburn: This is a valuable part of our agricultural development, and there is no question of that.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of the average time taken between submission and carrying out of the 64 schemes he has mentioned?

Mr. Woodburn: No, the scheme has been in operation for too short a time for any such estimate to be given.

Mr. MacLeod: Is there any undue delay in considering these applications?

Mr. Woodburn: Not so far as it lies within my power, but as the hon. Member will understand a great number of people are involved in the consultations who are not under my direction and that has to be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Disabled Pensioners, Birmingham (Motor Cars)

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state the number of motor cars provided for seriously disabled pensioners which have been allotted to Birmingham; and how many are being made available for the Haig Homes, Moseley.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): Thirty-two eligible pensioners are at present living in Birmingham and 22 of them have already received cars. One eligible pensioner lives in the Haig Homes and he will shortly be provided with a car.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that Birmingham is getting its. appropriate allocation of these cars for disabled men?

Mr. Simmons: Certainly. The cars, are given according to categories of disablement and our records show that on these standards 32 pensioners in Birmingham are eligible, of whom 22 have already been supplied, which I think is rather a good record.

Allowances (Statutory Instrument)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Minister of Pensions (1) why S.R. & O., 1949, No. 2025, permits the allowance for prolonged abstention from work to date back to 1st December, 1947, whereas the allowance for lowered standards of work is only to date back to 1st May, 1948, and the supplementary allowance to the unemployable to 18th August, 1948;

(2) why S.R. & O., 1949, No. 2025, permits the allowance for illegitimate children to date back to 18th September, 1946, whereas the allowance for step-children and adopted children may only be dated back to 1st February, 1948.

Mr. Simmons: The new Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme incorporates all improvements which have been introduced and applied at varying times in the last few years. The different dates specified in the Order are, therefore, determined by the dates on which the particular improvements were introduced.

Stump Socks

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Pensions whether the supply of stump socks is now adequate to meet the needs of disabled ex-Service men and of National Health Service patients who have suffered amputations.

Mr. Simmons: During recent years, owing to the demands of the National Health Service and to certain difficulties in supply we have been able to issue only four stump socks every six months. Supplies have been so increased that in January next patients will be able to receive eight socks in one issue.

Mr. Parkin: Has it been possible to consider the employment of disabled men in meeting this need?

Mr. Simmons: Yes. Two hundred dozen socks per week are being manufactured in the Remploy factories, about one-third of our total supply from all sources. We may eventually double that output.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether our prisons, in which socks of high grade are made, cannot help in this matter?

Mr. Simmons: The making of stump socks is a specialised job requiring specialised machinery. One firm has been making them for a long period of years. We have installed the machinery at Remploy factories, and they are now providing us with all the socks we need.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Private, Parachute Regiment (Sentence)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for War if 14473176 Private G. E. Watson has now been released; and to what regiment he has been transferred.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Private Watson has not yet been released. His case will be reviewed on 16th December. While held at the military corrective establishment he remains on the non-effective strength, but on his release he will be posted to the Black Watch Regiment.

Foreign Workers

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for War why the employment of European voluntary workers in the establishments administered by his Department is conditional on such persons joining a British trade union; and whether this instruction was issued by his Department.

Mr. Shinwell: My Department, in common with employers in outside industries, discussed with the trade unions concerned, the terms, conditions and safeguards under which foreign workers should be employed and an agreement was reached. One of the conditions agreed was that the foreign workers should be selected for employment by my Department only if they were prepared to join the appropriate British trade union. This condition was included in the instruction which was issued by my Department dealing with the employment of foreign workers.

Sir R. Glyn: Does that condition obtain in the other Service Departments, and if people are doing their work satisfactorily is it right to issue to them a letter to say that they will be discharged unless they join a union by Friday next? Is that in accordance with the ordinary practice of the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot speak for other Service Departments but no doubt the hon. Member can put down a Question to them. The National Joint Advisory Council, a body comprising employers' and workers' representatives, approved the principle of the employment of foreign workers in this country, and advised that consultations should take place with a view to their membership of the appropriate trade union. The arrangement has worked very well, and so far as I know the European voluntary workers are giving satisfaction.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not just as intolerable that an employer should compel a man to join a union as that he should, as he did in earlier days, forbid him to join one? Is the Minister aware that we do not want this sort of thing in the public service? We have never had it. We can do all our own organising without any help from Ministers. This is intolerable.

Mr. Shinwell: This arrangement is working very well and there is no reason why I should interfere with it.

Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that if we are to get the maximum production and the greatest harmony in industry these men should be members of the organisation responsible for making agreements between the employers and the trade unions?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I know, these workers have not protested against this arrangement, and if they are quite satisfied and everything is working well, why should not we leave it alone?

Sir R. Glyn: May I say that the only knowledge I have of this matter was a protest signed by five of these men and their friends about being forced to join this union? The local union officials do not want it.

National Service Men

Mr. Albert Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of National Service men taken into the Army during the last year or convenient period; the number who have been discharged on medical grounds; and the number who have died before their training was completed, giving separate figures for discharges and deaths due to accidents.

Mr. Shinwell: The number of National Service men taken into the Army between 1st November, 1948, and 31st October, 1949, was 114,856. Statistics are not available to show how many of these have been discharged on medical grounds or have died before their training was completed, but in the same period a total of 5,506 National Service men were discharged on medical grounds and 229 died. Separate figures are not available for discharges and deaths due to accidents.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take all possible steps to reduce the number of unfit men taken?

Mr. Shinwell: We are giving great care to this matter and are in close consultation with the Ministry of Labour.

Camp, Willsworthy

Mr. Studholme: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the prisoner-of-war camp at Willsworthy

in the parish of Mary Tavy has now been derelict for many years; and whether he will take steps to have the unsightly buildings and rusty barbed wire removed.

Mr. Shinwell: Willsworthy Camp, the site of which is owned by my Department, is used as a tented camp site for training. The range area is also in constant use. Certain buildings are required as permanent structures for the tented camps, but the hutting and barbed wire used for the prisoners of war cage during the war is being removed as quickly as labour can be spared from more urgent tasks.

War Office Property, Alderney

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how muck land is owned by his Department in the island of Alderney; for what purposes it is now used; and how long he proposes retaining it;

(2) how much land is held by his Department in the island of Alderney under D.R. 51 and D.R. 52; when was the last occasion on which it was used for training or manoeuvres; and to what extent he now proposes relinquishing these rights.

Mr. Shinwell: My Department owns some 180 acres on the island of Alderney. Most of the property owned is let, the buildings for habitation and the land for grazing. The future of the property is still under consideration. No land is held under Defence Regulation 51 or Defence Regulation 52.

Mr. Sharp: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recent committee of the Privy Council recommended that all land that was not required should be handed over to the island so that it could be used for cultivation, and would he if possible get out of Alderney as soon as possible?

Mr. Shinwell: We cannot give up land if we require it.

Suez Canal Zone (Leave Centres)

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for War what facilities for local leave are available to British troops in the Suez Canal Zone other than to the island of Cyprus.

Mr. Shinwell: Leave centres for British troops in the Suez Canal Zone exist at Cairo, Suez, Port Fouad, Ismailia and


Cyprus. Individuals are also at liberty to make their own arrangements for leave.

Dr. Segal: In view of the somewhat restricted facilities available, could not some of those camps built by us during the war in the territories of Cyrenaica, the Sudan, Aden and British Somaliland by opened up again as leave centres for these troops?

Mr. Shinwell: I should imagine that some of those places are hardly suitable for leave centres.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is not Alexandria included in the list of leave centres for troops in this area? It has many more attractions to offer than Suez to men overseas.

Mr. Shinwell: Apparently it is not in the list I have given.

Indian Transitional Allowance

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the hardship which will be caused by the cessation of the Indian transitional allowance on 31st March, 1950; and what steps he is proposing to take to alleviate this hardship.

Mr. Shinwell: The Indian transitional allowance which was introduced with effect from 1st July, 1946, was a special concession designed to mitigate the effect of applying United Kingdom Income Tax rules, instead of Indian Income Tax rules and to give the officers and other ranks concerned time to adjust their budgets to the new conditions. It was given only in those ranks where the net loss of emoluments would otherwise have been unduly sudden. The rates were on a diminishing scale and it was made clear in a statement by the Prime Minister in the House on 30th May, 1946, that the allowance would cease altogether on 31st March, 1950. In the circumstances I do not consider that there is any question of hardship arising on the cessation of the allowance.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is not it a fact that when these transitional allowances were made it was expected that Income Tax would be reduced and various other expenses would be lessened for these people; and in view of that, will not the Minister reconsider this whole situation,

because there is a very real grievance here?

Mr. Shinwell: I think the hon. Member has been misinformed. This was a special concession attributable to special circumstances relating to British officers in the Indian Army. It was made clear at the time the concession was made that it would be gradually tapered off and it is being tapered off, so that nobody can reasonably complain.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is not that causing the hardship?

Mr. Shinwell: There are, of course, compensations on the other side in the way of a local overseas allowance.

Photo-Printing (Private Work)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for War how many members of his staff were concerned in the recent irregular performance of photo-printing work for a private firm; whether they received or were promised payment; whether any of them were associated with, or related to, a person engaged in the management of the said firm; and if he will make a full statement upon their conduct.

Mr. Shinwell: Four members of my staff had some personal responsibility in this incident. There is no evidence that any payment was promised to any individual, or that any payment was made to anyone, apart from a sum of £2 purported to be for time worked by some subordinate employees outside normal office hours. One of the four persons introduced his brother, the managing director of the firm concerned, to the technical officer of the sub-section, with a view to his receiving some unofficial advice about photo-printing methods and equipment, but without any intention that actual printing work should be carried out. I have already made it clear that in my opinion the carrying out of the work in question was very irregular. The individuals concerned were not blameworthy to an equal degree and I am satisfied that suitable disciplinary action has been taken in each case. The value of the work done has now been paid for by the firm.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that there was


any degree of innocence in this matter, having regard to the fact that the value of the work, as he admitted last week, was £140? Surely this is a case where someone should have been sacked, if not prosecuted?

Mr. Shinwell: There were no degrees of innocence, but there were degrees of blame and I have acted accordingly. The payment of £115 has been made by the firm to the War Office.

Medical Services, Malaya

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to increase the number of surgeons needed for treatment of the wounded in fighting in Malaya.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement with regard to the medical services provided for British troops in the Malayan campaign; and if he will state what improvements can be expected in the immediate future.

Mr. Shinwell: The medical services in Malaya include an adequate number of Service hospitals and medical officers to maintain the normal health of the troops and to care for the sick and wounded. Difficulties, however, arise in securing the immediate surgical treatment of battle casualties. Since fighting is carried on by numerous small columns of troops which operate in difficult country and are frequently on the move, it is impracticable to provide surgical facilities for carrying out operations in the immediate vicinity of the fighting. Consequently it is necessary for casualties to be evacuated to the hospitals where surgical attention can be given.
There are three Service hospitals in Malaya district, which covers the mainland of Malaya, but there is only one Army surgeon and it has accordingly been necessary to utilise the services of civil surgeons. In Singapore island there are three Service hospitals and three Army surgeons. To meet the deficiencies of surgeons in the Army as a whole, arrangements have been made to engage immediately a number of civil surgeons for short-term contracts. Three have already accepted the terms and conditions of service, and, subject to their being physically fit will be sent to the Far East

as soon as possible to complete the establishment in that theatre.
The evacuation of casualties presents great difficulties in view of the nature of the country and efforts have been made for a considerable time to devise a suitable means of air transport from the jungle to the nearest hospital. Various tests have been undertaken and work is now proceeding on the modification of three helicopters to make them suitable for this task. They should arrive in Malaya in April, 1950. In the meantime, the effects of delay before surgical treatment are being minimised, as far as possible by the use of penicillin and other drugs.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there are a large number of Scots soldiers in Malaya; that there is great disquiet as the result of a report by a special correspondent in Malaya about the very poor surgical treatment afforded to the soldiers, and that this is causing a great deal of alarm? Could he tell us exactly how many surgeons are in Malaya itself, apart from Singapore, and will he look into the whole question, which is causing considerable disquiet?

Mr. Shinwell: First, I must say that I make no distinction between Scots and any other class of soldier. We treat them all alike. I have looked into this matter very carefully, not without some anxiety, but there are special difficulties. First, there are difficulties in procuring the type of surgeon required who will go out to Malaya. I think that we have now got over that difficulty. As regards the general services, I agree that we have only one surgeon in this area, but there are civilian surgeons in the neighbourhood who can be made available if casualties require to be treated.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the first announcement that the War Office made was that there were seven surgeons active in the Malaya district when the establishment is only for three and there is actually only one surgeon functioning? This gives great anxiety not only to every unit out there, but also to relations in this country, and would the right hon. Gentleman say why it is not possible to have evacuation by air before April next?

Mr. Shinwell: The public relations department of the War Office were correct


in the statement they made. They referred to the strength in the whole area, and that was seven. There is one in the Malaya district, three in Singapore and three in Hong Kong. They referred to the whole theatre and not to Malaya in particular. That was what was said and, so far as this was concerned, they were correct. Nevertheless, I agree that it is insufficient, but I can assure hon. Members that we are taking all possible steps to deal with the situation.

Mr. Eden: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the helicopters? I understood last March when I was there that they were soon to be expected. Why it is that these helicopters cannot be there until next April?

Mr. Shinwell: I regret very much that difficulty in this connection. We were promised the helicopters, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, last March or April, but unfortunately it was discovered that the type of helicopter which was to be made available was unsuitable and modifications have had to take place ever since. I cannot hope to procure them before March or April.

Mr. Chetwynd: Are there any surgeons available in this theatre from the other two Services—the Air Force and the Navy?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say off-hand but, as I have said, there are civilian surgeons available in the neighbourhood.

Brigadier Head: Is the Minister aware, so far as the helicopter matter is concerned, that where it is a question of aid for British wounded, the fact that it has taken nearly a year to modify them is just not good enough?

Mr. Shinwell: I regret the delay, for which we must accept responsibility. Nevertheless, it must not be assumed that the wounded are not being taken care of.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will realise how immensely important from the point of view of the morale of the troops is this question of helicopters. Could he not tell us what is the cause of the hold-up? What Department is concerned—the Ministry of Civil Aviation or the Air Ministry or what?

Mr. Shinwell: We were promised these helicopters by the Air Ministry. Obviously, it must be the Air Ministry. It was discovered that modifications had to take place, and it has taken some time to effect those modifications.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there are not capable surgeons in the R.A.M.C. who could be flown out there at once so that, at any rate, there might be a sufficient number of surgeons able to deal with those who are wounded?

Mr. Shinwell: First, I must emphasise that we have experienced no serious difficulty in Malaya. Attention has been drawn to the shortage of surgeons, but it must not be assumed that anything serious has resulted from that shortage, although at the same time I regret the shortage. On the question of flying surgeons from the R.A.M.C. out to Malaya, unfortunately, for some considerable time we have had to give attention to the shortage of surgeons in this country and in other theatres.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman in his first answer concentrated almost entirely on surgeons. Can he give us some idea of other medical attention available? For instance, how long does it take for the casualty to get back to a R.A.P.? Are there casualty clearing stations and advanced dressing stations? What is the general picture? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise the amount of anxiety his answer has caused.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman must not be hot and bothered about this. There is no occasion for engendering heat about it. We want to deal with this matter as speedily as possible, and that is precisely what we are endeavouring to do. As regards the availability of medical services—dressing stations and the like—I can assure the hon. Member and other hon. Members that the position is by no means unsatisfactory.

Dr. Segal: Can my right hon. Friend say how many surgeons in this area hold consultant status; further, could he not perhaps look into the matter of offering adequate remuneration in order to procure the highest possible type of surgeon specialist to be flown out to that area?

Mr. Shinwell: We are in fact offering excellent terms to civilian surgeons in this country. For service abroad we are offering from £1,800 to £2,200 a year, according to qualifications. In addition, they will receive a foreign service allowance and an outfit allowance. On the whole, the terms are rather good.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Owing to the neglectful attitude of the War Office in this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORCES, MALAYA (GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL)

Lord John Hope: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the granting of a general service medal to the Forces engaged in Malaya.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): This matter is at present under consideration.

Lord John Hope: I hope the Prime Minister will realise that the country will be disappointed that no decision has yet been arrived at. Does not he agree that the granting of such an award as this would be the best way of showing the men on the spot that their country is not unmindful of their devotion to duty and is grateful for it?

The Prime Minister: I am waiting for some information from the High Commissioner on certain aspects.

Sir Ronald Ross: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that in the past general service medals have been awarded for operations involving far less hardship and far fewer casualties than the operation in Malaya?

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this matter is under active consideration?

The Prime Minister: I have already done so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (DIRECTORSHIPS)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Prime Minister if the rule laid down by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1906 and reaffirmed on 16th May, 1939, relating to

the holding of directorships in private companies by Members of the Government is still in force.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Erroll: May we take it that the recent statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has in no way altered the position?

The Prime Minister: Certainly. It was in entire conformity.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMON COLD (RESEARCH)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Lord President of the Council if his attention has been drawn to the claims which have recently been made in the United States of America regarding the efficacy of antihistamine preparations for the treatment of the common cold; and what research has now been undertaken into the use of this drug in the United Kingdom.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The claims to which the hon. Member refers are naturally of great interest to the Medical Research Council workers who are studying the problem of the common cold at the Harvard Hospital, Salisbury. Unfortunately, a carefully controlled attempt, made last spring, to confirm the value of one of the drugs most recommended in America failed to show that it had any dramatic effect. The experiment emphasised the need for great care in assessing the claims made for cold cures, in view of the extremely variable natural duration of colds without special treatment.

Mr. Lewis: When my right hon. Friend referred to one of the drugs that has been investigated in America, was he referring to the anti-histamine preparation mentioned in the Question; and in view of the fact that millions of man-hours are lost every year due to the effect of the common cold, which must cost the nation a great deal in terms of revenue and productivity, would he undertake that he will have investigated at all times any authentic claims which may be made in regard to the treatment of the common cold?

Mr. Morrison: I was referring to the drug which my hon. Friend has mentioned. Certainly, we will follow up any promising line of research.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Economic Survey, 1950

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor ot the Exchequer on what date it is intended to publish an Economic Survey for 1950.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): It is intended that the Economic Survey for 1950, should be published about the middle of March, as was this year's Survey.

Mr. Erroll: Will the Survey take into account the possibility of a change of Government during 1950?

Sir S. Cripps: It will take all material matters into account.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that it takes a number of weeks to get such a Survey through the printing process, especially if a General Election is in progress, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that it is done, nevertheless?

English Journalist (Dollar Allowance)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what dollar allowance has been made available to Pam Tabberer, an English journalist, who is providing tendentious and false material for the American Press; and whether, in the interests of preserving good Anglo-American relations, he will take steps to withdraw the sums granted in this and similar cases.

Sir S. Cripps: As ! have stated repeatedly, it would not be proper to disclose details of individual applications for foreign currency allowances made to the Bank of England under the Exchange Control Act, 1947.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is an abuse of the facilities granted by the Treasury to facilitate visits to the United States for silly women like Pam Tabberer and others to go over there and traduce and denounce this country on the other side of the Atlantic?

Purchase Tax (Greeting Cards)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the separate total yields from Purchase Tax on Christmas and New Year cards for the

years 1946, 1947 and 1948; and what is the estimated yield for 1949.

Sir S. Cripps: Christmas, New Year and other greeting cards, form part of more than one Purchase Tax class. It is not possible to sort them out for the purpose of giving the figures of yield asked for in the first part of the Question. But receipts from all kinds of greeting cards may be estimated on the present basis at about £3½ million.

Mr. Erroll: Does the Chancellor realise that this taxation of Christmas good will is abhorrent, and will he take steps to ensure that a future Budget will eliminate this form of taxation?

Sir S. Cripps: Judging by the number of cards purchased every year, that cannot be so.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Chancellor aware that his recent decision to increase the Purchase Tax on many of next year's Christmas cards will cast undeserved opprobrium on the Conservative Government which will then be in power?

Sir S. Cripps: It would be impossible to cast undeserved opprobrium.

Entertainments Duty (Plays)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plays at present running at London theatres are exempt from Entertainments Duty under Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1946.

Sir S. Cripps: The following plays at present running at London theatres, being promoted by bodies which qualify for exemption from Entertainments Duty under Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1946, are exempt: "The Beaux' Stratagem," "Death of a Salesman," "The Golden Door," "The Heiress," "Hindle Wakes," "The Lady's not for Burning," "Love's Labour's Lost," "The Seagull," "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "Treasure Hunt."

Mr. Wilson Harris: While I have no objection to the last named play in the list, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really satisfied that all these plays need the substantial financial assistance which he is giving them?

Sir S. Cripps: I am satisfied that they come within the provision which was laid down by Parliament.

Mr. Benn Levy: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a comparison between the list which he has just read out and a list of the plays which are not tax exempt, completely vindicates this system of tax exemption, and that, if the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) is not careful, I will read out the alternative list?

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I ask the Chancellor whether the theatre-goer is being relieved? Is there a drop in price in regard to exemption from Entertainments Duty, or is the Entertainments Duty swept into the "non-profits" pool?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Boothby: Will the Chancellor look into the administration of this Section of the Finance Act before the introduction of the next Budget?

Sir S. Cripps: I am perfectly satisfied with the administration; I have looked into it many times.

Mr. Wilson Harris: In regard to "A Streetcar Named Desire," if it gives rise to "An Autobus named Salacity" or "An Aeroplane named Lascivious," will the right hon. and learned Gentleman claim that this is really cultural education and say that we can now withdraw from U.N.E.S.C.O.?

Sir S. Cripps: I should not like to forecast the cultural value of plays which have not yet been written.

Overtime Earnings (Taxation)

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the annual sum which would be lost to the Inland Revenue were no Income Tax to be paid on overtime earnings; and the extent by which this loss would be offset as a result of increased production because of the greater incentive created.

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that this information is not available.

Mr. Lewis: Might it not be well if the Chancellor were to tax his ingenuity in order to devise some method whereby it might be possible for productivity to be

increased as a result of the alleviation of the tax on overtime?

Sir S. Cripps: Looking at the matter quite objectively, I think my ingenuity is sufficiently taxed already.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, in fact, if he did what is proposed in the Question, the tendency would not be for everybody to work overtime and nobody to work during the daytime?

Sir S. Cripps: That may be so.

Payments to Directors (Taxation)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now formally indicate his intention that he will introduce into his next Budget a provision whereby payments made to directors of companies in consideration of their agreement not to become directors of other companies, will be treated as income, and not as a capital payment.

Sir S. Cripps: As my right hon. Friend explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on 24th November, I am looking into this matter, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I hoped that he could anticipate that he will himself be making the next Budget statement; and, secondly, in all these circumstances would he not consider setting up a committee to inquire into tax evasion?

Electoral Registers

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any further cut is proposed in national expenditure to compensate for the discovery that the annual saving to the Exchequer from reducing the number of electoral registers from two to one will be £650,000, not £800,000.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. Further economy in Government expenditure generally is being pursued irrespective of any reductions already announced in specific services.

Mr. Keeling: As the Government have made three shots at this estimate already—first £800,000, then £400,000 and now £650,000—and as it is clear that some


other estimates—for instance, the yield from the shilling tax on prescriptions—will be very far out, does he think that there is any chance of the total saving from cuts being realised?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think that a variation of £150,000 in £280 million is very excessive.

Republic of Ireland (Sterling Balances)

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he anticipates that the recent officially-announced change of policy by the Government of the Irish Republic, as regards their position as a member of the sterling group, will affect this country.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not clear what official statement the hon. Member has in mind; but if he is referring to the recent speech by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic I have nothing to add to the reply given on 1st December to the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher).

Professor Savory: If the proposal is to withdraw sterling balances, may I ask the Chancellor whether he has called the attention of the Government of Eire to the losses which this country sustained in providing for their defence by means of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, whereas Eire's withholding of the use of the ports caused the loss of thousands of lives and innumerable tons of shipping?

Sir S. Cripps: That is a hypothetical question which I am afraid I could not answer.

Central Office of Information (Leaflet)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the scale of distribution of a leaflet issued by the Central Office of Information entitled, "What's all this?"; how many copies have been printed; to whom they have been distributed; and what is the cost to public funds.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The hon. Member is presumably referring to the leaflet "For Women Only." The print order is for one million copies at an estimated cost of

£1,800. The main distribution is through women's voluntary organisations but copies are also being made available through the regional offices of the Central Office of Information, who are paying particular attention to the needs of housewives and women in industry.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that this document is also being distributed to the women's Services on the basis of one copy per woman, and is not that an excessive distribution?

War Damage Payments, Liverpool

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much has been paid out in war damage in the City of Liverpool to owners of privately-owned damaged sites; how much has been paid to the local authority for war damage; and how far the. payments include clearance of sites where necessary.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The following amounts have been paid to the local authority: For repairs to war damaged houses, £6,718,000; for demolition and clearance, £1,407,604; for war damage to highways, £146,845. No separate records are kept of war damage payments to private owners in particular areas.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that the leader of the Conservative Party in the Liverpool City Council says that they have no way of getting money from the Government in order to clear sites in the Liverpool area?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This, of course, should enlighten them.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in the interests of improving the output in the cotton industry, he will consider extending the benefits of the Cotton Subsidy Act to smaller units which make specialised types of goods and which are therefore not in a position to amalgamate.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): The Cotton Spinning (Re-equipment Subsidy) Act, 1948, is designed not only to encourage modernisation in cotton spinning mills but also to secure a measure of consolidation in the industry.
The Act is administered as flexibly as is possible without the sacrifice of this twofold purpose. I appreciate that mills engaged in a specialised type of production may find it difficult to qualify, and if my hon. Friend has any particular group of mills in mind I would be pleased to look into the case.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the experience which my hon. Friend's Department has already had in regard to this matter, he must know that consolidation is extremely difficult; and in view of this fact would he reconsider the whole question in order to see if efficiency can be brought to bear by allowing the benefits under this Act to apply to smaller units?

Mr. Osborne: Could the Minister tell the House how many groups are amalgamated under this Act?

Mr. Bottomley: Not without notice, but, generally, I would reply again that we are prepared to look at any case which any hon. Member wishes to draw to our attention. We encourage it.

Mr. Austin: Is it not a fact that a concession has already been made in relation to this Act whereby instead of the 400,000 grouping, a grouping of 250,000 is admitted for the benefits of the subsidy?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir, that is true.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCHEQUER BONDS (CONVERSION)

Mr. Oliver Stanley: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make on the conversion of the 1¾ per cent. Exchequer Bonds.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. On 2nd December I announced the conversion offer for £787 million of 1¾ per cent. Exchequer Bonds and stated that the offer would close last night. Approximately £723 million out of the total of £787 million has been tendered for conversion. This does not include conversions of Exchequer Bonds on the Bank of Ireland or Post Office registers which are, however, quite small in amount. I am sure the House will be glad to know of this highly satisfactory result.

Mr. Stanley: When the Chancellor announced this conversion, I expressed, I

think on behalf of all hon. Members, the hope that it would be successful. I am sure I am doing the same now in saying that I am glad that it has been successful.

Lieut. - Commander Braithwaite: Would the Chancellor inform the House what percentage of the £723 million which has been tendered for conversion was held by Government Departments or by public corporations under Government control.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, that is never done.

ELECTRICAL POWER INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)

Mr. Eden: Mr. Eden (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make about the dispute in the electrical power industry.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret to inform the House that at a meeting today the men employed at the Barking Power Station have decided to strike this afternoon. The Government are taking all necessary steps to maintain essential supplies, but the House will understand that load shedding may be inevitable in the circumstances. Service men are already carrying out essential duties at the three Power Stations which stopped work yesterday.
I would remind the men on strike that their action not only results in a breach of contract with their employers, and endangers the interests of the country, but is also a breach of loyalty to their trade union leaders who, in the course of negotiations extending over many months, secured for the majority of the workers in the industry a standard hitherto enjoyed only by the minority. No man will suffer any money loss. The Chairman of the trade union side of the Joint Industrial Council has issued a statement which sets out fairly the facts and circumstances that have led to the present position. With permission of the House, I will circulate a textual copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
There is no doubt where the men's duty lies. They should return to work at once and leave it to the joint machinery of the industry to deal with any point requiring settlement.

Mr. Eden: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a very


serious situation which has developed. Can he give us any more information than is in his answer about what load shedding will be necessary? It is clearly of the greatest importance that everybody should know what the position is likely to be. Secondly, may I ask what steps, if any, are being taken to bring before the men this information which is to be made available for us in the Vote Office?

Mr. Isaacs: So far as the extent of load shedding is concerned, it is impossible to give any definite indication, but up to now the Service men already installed in the stations are carrying out a satisfactory job, and I am sure that the House and the country are grateful to them. With reference to the statement, it is too long to read to the House, but I can say that the several unions are making every effort to make the facts known to their members. It may be that because the statement which the unions can make is such a satisfactory one somebody decided that it was just as well to call a strike before the men had the statement. The unions are certainly doing their best to draw the attention of their members to the need for using the constitutional machinery and to the danger to that machinery which will follow their action.

Mr. Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any arrangements are being made for this statement to be given out to the men at the works?

Mr. Isaacs: This statement was issued rather late last night by the unions and therefore I think that neither the Press nor the B.B.C. had an opportunity to deal with it in its entirety, and that only the main point was covered. However, I understand that the Federation concerned, through the President, are taking steps to bring these facts home to their members.

Mr. Henry Strauss: In addition to the matters which the right hon. Gentleman is bringing to the notice of the men, is it not fair in their own interests that he should also bring to their notice the fact that they are apparently committing a criminal offence?

Mr. Isaacs: Their attention is drawn to the fact that their action is a breach of contract.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Can we have the assurance of the Minister—whose difficulties we realise—that this is not the beginning of another dockers' strike where we shall be having statements day after day which will possibly drag on for one, two or three weeks? If this thing can be settled in three weeks' time, cannot it be settled right away? Can we avoid the repetition of the dockers' strike?

Mr. Isaacs: Obviously, everybody concerned will endeavour to get a settlement, but we cannot just force men into a settlement. Every effort that can be made by persuasion to bring the facts home to them will be made.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Was the Minister's attention recently drawn to a week-end * speech by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) in which he talked about the Tory Party giving men the right to strike?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this strike at all.

Mr. Awbery: Will the Minister give an assurance that these negotiations will not take place with any body other than the recognised trade unions to which these men belong?

Mr. Isaacs: I can give a very definite assurance that there will be no negotiations by the Government with any body except the trade unions.

Mr. Osborne: Can any action be taken against the men who fomented this trouble which is obviously against the best interests of the men and the trade unions concerned?
Following is the statement:
The strike action taken by the manual workers at Brimsdown, Littlebrook and Taylor's Lane Power Stations of the British Electricity Authority has come at a critical stage in the negotiations for payments to meet their special conditions.
The National Joint Industrial Council for the Electricity Supply Industry has been working at extreme pressure to resolve as quickly as possible those difficulties arising from the recent wages agreement awarding 1½ d. per hour to all manual workers, although it was agreed that the 1½ d. per hour should merge in any excess payment that was not justified, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the national agreement. No worker within the industry has a smaller wage packet than hitherto but a small percentage of the workers in the industry have had their plus differential


between themselves and workers of a similar craft reduced, because the majority of the workers have been brought nearer to the standard enjoyed by the minority.
In the case of the three Stations, every employee was in receipt of a percentage addition to the national rate of his grade, irrespective of whether the individual was working under conditions abnormal to the industry or not.
The recent agreement and the one to which the workers have evidently taken exception, made provision for l½ d. an hour increase in the basic wage for all workers to merge into the percentage addition, but it left open for negotiations to be conducted for those working under conditions abnormal to the industry to increase this l½ d. to at least 2d. per hour.
The Chairmen and Secretaries of the Employees Side of the Works Committee of Brimsdown, Littlebrook, Barking and Taylor's Lane Power Stations were given the opportunity on Friday, 2nd December, to meet their national trade union leadership. Here they were able to submit additional factual material for proposed negotiations with the Authority to retain those bonus payments which had previously been made.
A special meeting of the Negotiating Committee was held on Tuesday, 6th December, when despite the material and facts then in the hands of the officials, the trade unions were again unable to substantiate the continued payment of plus payments in their old form, but stress was laid on the provision in the agreement relating to abnormal conditions, and the Works Committees were advised to negotiate on this basis. I understand that certain discussions have taken place at works level.
A meeting had been arranged for Thursday next, 15th December, at which the largest possible representation from the men involved would have been able to meet their national leaders. A full report was to have been made to them of the negotiations to date and details given of how it would be possible under the conditions now operating in the Power Stations where they work, to make a successful claim for extra payments.
Various payments for abnormal conditions obtain in the industry from a minimum of 1d. plus adequate protective clothing up to time-and-a-half of the worker's normal hourly rate.
A special meeting of the National Council is to be held tomorrow (Tuesday, 13th December) but I feel justified in saying that the strike is to be regretted and cannot possibly have the support of any trade unionist who is prepared to at least allow the normal negotiating procedure to function, before a decision was reached that the negotiating machinery cannot adequately cater for the workers within a given industry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether any changes are to be made in the Business for this week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): We desire today to take the Lords Amendments to the Electoral Registers Bill, after the completion of the Justices of the Peace Bill [Lords] and before the other Business already announced for consideration.
Tomorrow, at the beginning of Business, we shall ask the House to consider the Lords Amendments to the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces Bill and to the War Damaged Sites Bill.
On Thursday, at the beginning of Business, we propose to take Amendments, which are expected to be received from another place, to the Distribution of German Enemy Property Bill, to the Festival of Britain Bill, and to any other Bills.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: In view of the fact that there is now a good deal of Business for Thursday, will my right hon. Friend consider suspending the Rule?

Mr. Morrison: I would like to very much, but we are in the difficulty that an Order of some importance follows which may lead to fairly substantial Debate, and, whilst I am keeping the matter under review, I do not think it will work out as a possibility.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman now afford some time to the House for the discussion of the gross and palpable misstatement about the law relating to corrupt practices made by himself and the right hon. and learned Attorney-General?

Mr. Morrison: I thought that both my right hon. and learned Friend and I had been as helpful as we could be.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement was wholly misleading to this House?

STANDING COMMITTEE E (QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE)

Mr. Speaker: I have been asked to make a correction to my statement, dated 5th December—HANSARD, columns 1539–42—regarding Commander Powell. I wish to make it clear that the post held by this gentleman is that of Administrative Secretary of the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The Secretary-General of that Union is of


course, M. Leopold Boissier, head of the Bureau at Geneva. I did not on 5th December make or intend any imputation against the British Group of the Union, or cast any reflection on the valuable work they perform. Furthermore, I believe the members of the British Group would wish me to say that Commander Powell has served the Group with efficiency and zeal since he was appointed Administrative Secretary.
The point of my statement on 5th December was that undesirable or unfair results might arise from this particular post being held by anyone doing professional work for Members of the House and at the same time work for outside organisations or bodies who may be

concerned with opposing or promoting various items of Parliamentary business, and not that any such undesirable or unfair results have in fact ensued. I am informed that Commander Powell has asked permission to resign his position of Administrative Secretary to the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 99.

Division No. 303.]
AYES
[3.45 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Daggar, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Daines, P.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, SW)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Janner, B.


Amterson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Jay, D. P T.


Attewell, H. G.
Deer, G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Aitlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Delargy, H. J
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Austin, H. Lewis
Dobbie, W.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Awbery, S. S.
Dodds, N. N.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Ayles, W. H
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Keenan, W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Dumpleton, C. W.
Kenyon, C.


Bacon, Miss A
Dye, S.
King, E. M


Balfour, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. G.
Kinley, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lang, G.


Barton, C.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lavers, S.


Battley, J. R.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lee, F. (Hulnte)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Berry, H.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Leonard, W.


Beswick, F.
Ewart, R.
Leslie, J. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Farthing, W, J
Levy, B. W.


Binns, J.
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Blackburn, A. R.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lipson, D. L.


Blyton, W. R.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Boardman, H.
Foot, M. M.
Logan, D. G.


Bottomley, A. G
Forman, J. C.
Longden, F.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lyne, A. W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McAdam, W.


Bramall, E. A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McEntee, V. La T


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McGhee, H. G


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D
Ganley, Mrs. C S.
McGovern, J


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gibbins, J.
Mack, J. D.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Gilzean, A.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Bruce, Maj. D. W T.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McLeavy, F.


Burden, T. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A (Wakefield)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Burke, W. A.
Grey, C. F.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Byers, Frank
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Callaghan, James
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Carmichael, James
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Chamberlain, R. A
Hale, Leslie
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Champion, A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Chafer, D.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Chetwynd, G. R
Harrison, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Cluse, W. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
Mikardo, Ian


Colman, Miss G. M
Herbison, Miss M.
Monslow, W.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hobson, C. R.
Moody, A. S.


Cook, T. F.
Holmes, H. E, (Hemsworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Moyle, A.


Cove, W. G.
Hoy, J.
Murray, J. D.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Naylor, T. E.


Cullon. Mrs.
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Neal, H. (Claycross)




Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Sargood, R
Turner-Samuels, M


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Scollan, T.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Scott-Elliot, v.
Viant. S. P.


Oldfield, W. H
Segal, Dr. S.
Walker, G. H


Orbaeh, M.
Shackleton, E A. A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Pannell, T. C.
Shurmer, P.
Warbey, W. N


Parker, J.
Silverman, J (Erdington)
Watkins, T E.


Parkin, B. T.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Simmons, C. J.
Weitzman, D.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Skeffington-Lodge, T C
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Pearson, A.
Skinnard, F. W.
West, D. G.


Peart, T. F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinh'gh, E.)


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Popplewell, E.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Sparks, J. A.
Wigg, George


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Steele, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Proctor, W. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham. E.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Pryde, D. J
Stokes, R. R.
Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)


Randall, H. E.
Sylvester, G. 0.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S)


Ranger, J
Symonds, A. L.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Rankin, J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Woods, G. S


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wyatt, W.


Robens, A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Yates, V. F.


Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thurtle, Ernest



Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Tiffany, S
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Tolley, L.
Mr. Hannon and Mr. Bowden.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.





NOES


Agnew, Cmcr P. G.
Glyn, Sir R
Odey, G. W


Amory, D. Heathooat
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Osborne, C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Gridley, Sir A. '
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baldwin, A. E
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Baxter, A. B.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Pickthorn, K.


Birch, Nigel
Head, Brig. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Boles, Lt.-Col. O. C. (Wills)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Raikes, H. V.


Boothby, R
Hollis, M. C.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bower, N.
Hope, Lord J.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J A.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)
Sanderson, Sir F


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Channon, H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Langford-Holt, J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O


Clifton-Brown, 'Lt.-Col. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A. H
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Linstead, H. N.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, H. G.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wig [...])
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


De la Bé re, R.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Digby, S. Wingfield
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
MacLeod, J
Touche, G. C.


Dower., E. L. G. (Caithness)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Duthie., W. S.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Erroll, F. J.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
York, C.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D (Pollok)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Brigadier Mackeson and




Colonel Wheatley.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [Lords]

Order read for consideration, as amended.

Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 16, page 13, line 32, and Schedule 4, page 56, line 22, standing on the Notice iPaper in the name of Mr. Ede,

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 16. —(ESTABLISHMENT OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS COMMITTEES.)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr Ede): I beg to move, in page 13, line 32, to leave out "seventy-five," and to insert "sixty-five."
This carries out an undertaking which I gave in Committee in response to a Debate originated by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). It will bring into this category the non-county boroughs of Stockton, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Hove, Swindon and Chesterfield, all of which are above 65,000. The next borough below that figure has a population of over 57,000 so that there will be no point in dropping the figure to 60,000. I think it is desirable that these magistrates' courts committees which are to be established in these non-county boroughs should, as far as possible, have the assurance that they will get a full-time clerk. I think, therefore, that we should keep the figure as high as possible.

Mr. Marlowe: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the request I made to him on this matter during the Committee stage. When I moved the Amendment which stood in my name on that occasion I was interested only in the non-county borough of Hove, and although the fact that one or two others have fortuitously fallen into the same group is a good thing for them, I must say that I was not in the least concerned in any other place except Hove, to which I referred on that occasion. As I then pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, there was a particular

problem in relation to Hove, especially having regard to the fact that although the borough has a population of 69,000 a population of 85,000 is catered for by the Hove court. In those circumstances I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting me on that point. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the freedom of the borough of Hove is not in my gift, but I will do my best for him.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Fourth Schedule. —(CONSTITUTION, ETC., OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS COMMITTEES.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 56, line 22, to leave out "seventy-five," and to insert "sixty-five." This is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause. —(JUSTICES' CLERKS EXAMINATION BOARDS.)

(1) The Secretary of State shall, in consultation with the Law Society set up a Justices' Clerks Examination Board.
(2) The said board shall, in accordance with rules to be made by the Lord Chancellor, be responsible for holding examinations for the purpose of examining candidates desiring to qualify as justices' clerks.
(3) Such rules shall require any candidate to satisfy the examiners as to his proficiency in such subjects as the Lord Chancellor shall determine are required to be known by a justices' clerk, including criminal law, evidence and procedure and general principles of law.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in section twenty of this Act a person who has satisfied the examiners in such examination as aforesaid shall be eligible for appointment as a justices' clerk.—[Mr. Marlowe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not want to repeat at length the arguments which we considered very fully, I think, when this Bill was in the Committee stage.

Mr. Ede: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment in my name to Clause 20, which I regard as an alternative to


the proposal which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward, and I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House for us to take both discussions together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am in the hands of the House. I agree to that suggestion, if there is no objection.

Mr. Marlowe: I agree that the two proposals should be discussed together. The argument in favour of not having the ordinary solicitors' qualifications were canvassed extensively on the last occasion by hon. Members on both sides of the House. An Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett) dealing with the question of abandoning the solicitors' examination altogether. In that discussion it became apparent that the Government were not prepared to retreat fully from the standard required of qualifying as a solicitor or a barrister, and I am disappointed with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has today suggested as a compromise.
The view which I now put forward is that if it is not possible to accept the idea that there should be no solicitors' qualification at all, then at least something on the lines I have suggested ought to be accepted as providing the necessary standard which a justices' clerk ought to possess. My main objection to the qualification under the solicitors' examination was that it involved the justices' clerk, or the assistant justices' clerk who is endeavouring to become a justices' clerk, in taking his mind and his training off the essential part of his task and compelled him to devote a considerable amount of his time to subjects which would have no interest to him whatever when he came to discharge his functions in court. As everyone knows, the solicitors' qualification requires an extensive knowledge of conveyancing and the law of property and those are not matters in which the clerk will have any interest when he comes to sit below the justices.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Under the Amendment which is to be proposed by the Home Secretary there will be no need for any other qualification than that of the law relating to the clerkship.

Mr. Marlowe: I do not think the hon. and learned Member understands the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has placed on the Order Paper. The new suggestion of the Home Secretary is that a justices' clerk needs to qualify as a solicitor in every respect other than that of service of articles. That is the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I will deal with that proposal in a moment. I want to deal first with my own Amendment, which suggests an entirely different examination. I was pointing out that when we accept either standard—either that which we had before, that of qualifying fully as a solicitor, or the standard suggested in the Amendment on the Order Paper today—we shall still compel the candidate who is endeavouring to qualify as a justices' clerk to devote a large part of his time and his training to subjects which are not necessary for him in the efficient discharge of his duties.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Such as?

Mr. Marlowe: As I said before, conveyancing and the law of property. I do not think justices' clerks need to know those subjects to carry out their job efficiently. They make the examinations extremely difficult, and a lot of people find it hard to pass. I do not know whether I am, perhaps, retaining some resentment from my youth against those examinations, but I know that I hated them both and that I found them extremely difficult, and it may be that I have not got rid of the hatred I had for them.

4.0 p.m.

I can sympathise with the younger men now who have to try to pass them, and I would save these men from the necessity of passing them. If they are required to pass those examinations it seems to me that they are required to devote a large part of their training to them at the expense of training for the job they ought to learn and the things they ought to know—that is, the principles of criminal law, the administration of courts, the rules of evidence and of procedure. Those are the matters which are most important to a justices' clerk. I am not suggesting that there are not other matters also that are important to him, but I would say that those were the ones in which it was most necessary to qualify.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me? As he knows, in the case of justices' clerks the essentials can be obtained in preparation for the preliminary examinations. The intermediate is really on the general principles of law, which are referred to in the new Clause. Has it occurred to the hon. and learned Gentleman that what he is proposing will do great harm to justices' clerks? It will mean that they will be trained only for the job of a justices' clerk, and will be limited to that extent, and that they will never have a chance of going into private practice if they want to.

Mr. Marlowe: I do not think those arguments are any good at all. We have accepted the principle that in certain circumstances men may continue to be justices' clerks though they are not qualified. I have forgotten the second suggestion the hon. Gentleman put forward.

Mr. Hale: They will not be able to practise.

Mr. Marlowe: If a man wants to go into private practice there is nothing to prevent him from taking the qualifying examination. I would not make it necessary for him to take that examination in training for the job of a justices' clerk. If he wants to do both, to be a solicitor and a justices' clerk, he can be trained as a solicitor, and I have no objection to his qualifying for both.

Mr. Hale: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman train people especially to be High Court judges, and so follow the line of his argument throughout?

Mr. Marlowe: I do not really think the hon. Gentleman is doing justice to my argument. I am not suggesting and have never suggested that this type of examination, of which I speak in my new Clause, would be suitable to persons occupying high judicial office. I have never suggested anything so far-fetched as that. I am dealing only with the question of justices' clerks. It is idle to argue that we must have men highly qualified in the law to be justices' clerks when we have admitted the principle of having unqualified men in the job. In practically all the big industrial towns, the most crowded areas, where the task of the justices' clerk is, probably, most important, because in those courts there

are a vast number of cases and a varying programme of cases almost daily, so that the clerks have to switch their minds from one sort of subject to another in the course of only one sitting—there are men, it is admitted, who shall remain.
I agree that my argument would be considerably reduced in force if we accepted the principle that every clerk has to be qualified, but as things stand at the moment that will not be the case until 1960 and afterwards; there are 10 years, at least, before that even begins to be a reality. There are young men who have the ambition to become justices' clerks and who may be permitted to become so by showing themselves proficient in the task.
I confess I have no evidence for it, but one has the impression, when one views the number of justices' clerks who are unqualified at the present time, and views them against the background of the living which qualified men can make, that it is extremely unlikely that we shall get the number of clerks we need to fill the posts. It will lead to many difficulties, and particularly to the one I emphasised the other day, that we shall tend only to get the man who is not a successful solicitor. It is most undesirable that we should have that type of man. I would far sooner have the kind who made the work of justices' clerk his living and became qualified for it in some such way as I have suggested, rather than a man who started with the ambition of becoming a solicitor, and, because he failed, turned to being a justices' clerk for the sake of a safe post where he could receive a regular income.
I want to deal with the suggestion made in the Government Amendment, which I do not think is satisfactory. I assume, as it appears on the Order Paper, that it must be acceptable to the Law Society, but I must say I am surprised that the Law Society should have permitted themselves to join in this sort of Amendment, because I, frankly, think it undesirable that a man should qualify without serving his articles. This suggestion, as it were, reverses the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) when he interrupted me a moment ago. According to this proposal, we are going to do nothing to prevent the man of what I called in our last Debate "devalued qualification" using it


in the full exercise of the solicitors' profession, and nothing to prevent him from becoming qualified as a solicitor and, in the process, a justices' clerk. He can pass this somewhat emasculated solicitors' examination without serving any articles at all, and when he becomes qualified as a justices' clerk there will be no power to limit his activities to that work.
Therefore, there will be created a kind of solicitor who has not had the advantages of having to train for the examinations and has not had to serve his articles, which I think is a very important part of the training of a solicitor, for it is that period of serving the articles that a man who is endeavouring to pass the examination spends in his solicitor's office, and it is in that period that he acquires the status and the standard of honour which the profession requires, and the experience which he needs when he sets out on his own account. I believe that part of training in the legal profession to be of immense importance, and I think it most regrettable that a Government Amendment should propose a means whereby there will be created a kind of solicitor who has not gone through the proper training and the full programme of training which the profession has heretofore demanded.
The practice of the law demands, apart from knowledge, many other things. It demands a standard of honour particularly, which can only be acquired by long association with those who have practised it. It would be most regrettable if we were to create a new type of solicitor—that is to say, one who has taken this somewhat easier examination, and has not gone through the process of being articled to a man of experience, as has been the practice heretofore. Therefore, I do not find the Government Amendment satisfactory. I should prefer to make an entirely new approach to the training and qualification of justices' clerks, abandoning the idea that they should qualify as solicitors, and, instead, making arrangements whereby men can qualify for the job of justices' clerk.

Mr. Charles Williams: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not wish to be drawn into an argument between lawyers about the merits of the particular form of examination which is needed, but during my

hon. and learned Friend's speech I was rather struck with the fact that, as far as I can understand, there ought not to be a too complicated examination for this purpose. I see that the Home Secretary is in one of his mellow moods today, and I believe that he and I have this much in common: that although we realise that some examinations are necessary, we both think that real experience, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, is most necessary for this and for many other types of work. T am not yet prepared to say whether this new Clause or the Home Secretary's Amendment would be best for the purpose. I shall decide that for myself when I have heard both sides. But I welcome the fact that apparently the Home Secretary is prepared to meet this request in some way.

Mr. Ede: Let me remind the House of how we have got into this position. We had a long and rather complicated argument about this matter in Committee on an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Cor-lett), who withdrew his Amendment on an undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend that this matter would be considered. We felt there was a great deal of substance in the arguments adduced in favour of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and we were very anxious to meet it, although I think that the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) has this afternoon rather receded from some of the arguments that he advanced against us in Committee.
We take the view that it is desirable that, within a reasonable space of time, every justices' clerk should be qualified. I take that view as a lay magistrate very strongly. When I am sitting on the bench endeavouring to discharge my oath as a magistrate, I think that I should have skilled advice on which I can rely from the professional adviser to the court, particularly when I have adduced in front of me an argument by two trained lawyers. It is very essential that I should feel I have a right to rely on the advice that is being tendered to me as being skilled.
We are then faced with two, and perhaps three, difficulties. In the first place, there is the fact that we have a


substantial number of men who have served as justices' clerks for some years, and who have by experience acquired a competence in the matter that we cannot ignore. I cannot imagine I shall be reproached by hon. Members opposite if I say that we feel bound to respect the vested interests of these men in the calling they have been following. It would be grossly unfair to wipe them out at the moment, and we have therefore said that there shall be a limited time during which this matter will arise; there shall be a date beyond which no fresh appointments of unqualified people shall be made. By an Amendment we have put down we propose to make that date 1st January, 1960, so as to give ample time for other people to be qualified.

4.15 p.m.

One of the things that rather amazed me before was that my hon. Friend the Member for York should be in favour of any Amendment that recognised unqualified people in any profession, for he and I, as members of the National Union of Teachers, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), have spent a great part of our lives declaiming against the unqualified people in our own profession, and we were always met with precisely the arguments that we were met with the other night: first, that we have got these people, and that they are the victims of a system; and secondly, if we get rid of them where are we to get the others from? Now, precisely those problems confront us here: Where are we to get the properly qualified clerks from?

We had a proposal that would have relied upon only solicitors and barristers entering their respective professions through the existing means being the people from whom the choice would be made. Then we were faced with the problem that was put by my hon. Friends, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith), and I think endorsed by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton, that there would be in the offices of the present unqualified clerks a number of assistants, who might be men of parts, who were perfectly capable of qualifying as solicitors, but who because they were not employed

by a solicitor, could not serve their articles.

When I looked at the Act I was rather astonished to see the ring fence that the solicitors' profession has managed to put round itself. The man employed in the magistrates' clerk's office cannot find some friendly solicitor in the neighbourhood who would enable that clerk to read with him, and things like that, because the man must have no other employment but that of the solicitor to whom he is articled. That meant that the men who are now in these offices would never be able to qualify, although some of them may be quite suitable young men, who I imagine all of us would like to see acting as justices' clerks.

The hon. and learned Member for Brighton also said on the last occasion that he did not want to debase the solicitor's certificate. I am thoroughly with him in that. But neither do I want to train up a number of men into a blind alley occupation. After all, what the hon. and learned Member's new Clause does is to say that certain people shall be trained as justices' clerks, and their training shall fit them for nothing else but being justices' clerks. Let us suppose that for some reason or another, perhaps physical infirmity, they cannot carry on as justices' clerks but would not be debarred from acting as solicitors if they were qualified. Surely it would be a matter of great hardship if, owing to the way in which they were admitted to this post, they were debarred from carrying on any other professional occupation.

Mr. Marlowe: I have not suggested that this should be exclusive. It is additional to Clause 20. I have no objection at all to their qualifying as solicitors as well if they wish to.

Mr. Ede: But the hon. and learned Member wants them to qualify as solicitors in the ordinary way. I think I have already dealt with that phase of his argument.
I object to people being trained in narrow specialist groups. I am quite sure that in the experience of every magistrate here there are occasions when, even in the most humdrum magistrates' court, one comes up against some point quite unexpectedly where a width of experience and training on the part of the person


who has to advise the magistrate is of the very greatest advantage. Perhaps I speak with some feeling, because more than once I have had to preside over the Petty Sessions at Epsom on the day after the Derby, and if the gentlemen who then appeared in front of me could not think up some fresh intricate point with which to befog the bench it was a poor morning. There are other matters that unexpectedly crop up in which wide reading, knowledge and training are of advantage to the person who has to advise the bench.
After the House adjourned the other night, I gave instructions to those who advise me that we should endeavour to meet leading solicitors and representatives of the Justices' Clerks Society to see if we could not find some means by which the people in the justices' clerks offices, who at present are debarred by the Solicitors Act from obtaining their full qualifications, could have an opportunity of qualifying. I must say that the first reaction of these people was not very friendly. I do not think they will object to my saying that everyone appears to be in favour of his own closed shop. It was not easy to get them to agree; but they are very anxious to secure that at some time or other the requirements for qualified persons shall become operative; and it is quite clear that some such arrangement as that enshrined in my Amendment will become necessary. We can put the date 1960 in the Bill, and grey-headed people like myself can say, "Thank goodness, that means that we shall not have to deal with this problem when it arises."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There will not be a Socialist Government then.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a prophet. As a native of Epsom, I never argue with prophets because, in my experience, when the numbers go up on the board the prophets are generally contradicted. Whatever Government may be in office in 1960, unless some arrangement is made by which the people in these offices can get their qualification as enacted, they will be faced with the fact that they will have to pass some Amendment to secure that the date shall again be postponed. I think that is dishonest legislation. I believe that qualification should be demanded. I believe that the people in the existing offices cannot be

disturbed because we have allowed them to grow up under the conditions of the existing law, but I am concerned for the young men in the offices who will have to face the time when a qualification can be demanded.
The solicitors to whom I spoke were leading members of the Law Society, but clearly they cannot bind the Law Society, although they undertook, at a meeting of the governing body of the society which is to be held on Friday, to stand by what they arranged with me. After a very long consultation and drafting conversation, which went on to a late hour last night, we managed to arrive at the Amendment on the Order Paper, subject to one small manuscript Amendment which I do not think it is essential to mention on this discussion of general principle.
I think that these leading solicitors and the representatives of the Justices' Clerks Society faced this issue in a thoroughly practical spirit, and they have enabled the Government to come before the House with an Amendment that is workable, that secures that existing holders of the office of an unqualified justices' clerk shall not be disturbed, that their assistants shall not suffer from the grave disability that they cannot qualify, and that enables us to feel that at the time when this matter becomes fully operative there will be a sufficient reservoir of qualified people on which to* draw.
There was one thing that the hon. and learned Member said on which I cannot profess to express an expert opinion. He expressed the view that the salaries likely to be paid would be unattractive and that we should get left with the failures of the profession. The hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith), who referred to me as Jezebel the other night, and who now appears to have gone off to find the dogs with which to have me devoured, said that one solicitor in his family had earned more than five other brothers put together. I was assured, when I discussed this matter yesterday with the Law Society, that they did not think that the salaries offered for full-time justices' clerks were likely to be unattractive, and they thought there would be reasonable competition among competent men who would prefer that sort of life.
This represents, as I hope the hon. and learned Member for Brighton will agree, a genuine effort on the part of the Government to meet the arguments which were adduced against us the other night. It does enable us, although we postpone the date by five years, to feel that there will come a time when the justices will have the advantage of being advised in court by a qualified clerk. I ask the House to reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's new Clause, and, for the purpose of dealing with this problem which we are both trying to solve, to adopt the Amendment which I have put on the Order Paper to Clause 20.
I should like to express my particular thanks to the representatives of the solicitors whom I saw yesterday on this matter, because they met a very difficult and practical point in a spirit of co-operation and with a desire to ensure that the principles which I have enunciated in the course of this speech should be made practical of enactment as the law of the land.

Mr. Corlett: I regret that I cannot support the hon. and learned Member in the new Clause he is now proposing. He gave me such generous support in my Amendment on Second Reading and in the Commitee stage that I rather feel that I am deserting him. But I am surprised at the line he has followed after the discussion which we had. All of us, I think, were in the difficulty to "Which the Attorney-General pointed, that is, that we were seeking by the Amendment to perpetuate indefinitely the employment of non-professional qualified clerks. I think that he was entitled to make that charge. But we were faced with the bigger difficulty that we wanted to secure justice for the assistants who, under Clause 20, were not going to receive it. We were faced with the still greater difficulty that under Clause 20 there would not be an adequate supply of justices' clerks to meet the need, so in spite of the charge which the Attorney-General made against us, which was quite justified, we had to take this stand and put down our Amendment.
When I read the hon. and learned Gentleman's Clause, I was at first attracted towards it. I had discussed this question over the week-end with many of my friends who were interested, but the more we looked at it the less attractive it seemed. Tt seemed to me that it would

mean that there would be inferior qualifications for this particular type of solicitor, if such they would be called. I do not think any of us want to see inferior qualifications in any profession. In any profession there should be a basic qualification with as many additional qualifications as one may like to secure, but there should not be two qualifications, one inferior to the other.

4.30 p.m.

I have considered whether London University might be able to supply an external degree in law for this type of post, and I know some assistant clerks who hold such a qualification, but the more I thought about it, the more I realised that it would be just as easy to take the professional qualifications as to take the external degree. I am driven, therefore, to support the proposals that are now put forward by my right hon. Friend. He has found, I believe, an admirable solution for a very difficult problem. In the first place, his solution will satisfy the Law Society. I did not express any great love for the Law Society when I spoke in the Second Reading Debate, but they are entitled to be considered fully in regard to the professional qualifications of their members. If my right hon. Friend has satisfied them that the proper qualifications will be available for these clerks, then he has done a great service.

In the second place, he has satisfied the assistants. The assistants now serving are completely covered. Every assistant now serving has the same protection that he had before Clause 20 appeared, which is all to the good. Indeed, assistants will be better off, because all these assistants will now have an opportunity to take the full professional qualification, which will make their chances for appointment to justices' clerk greater than now, when they have only a statutory qualification. A man will now have the statutory qualifications plus the additional professional qualifications desired by the Law Society.

In the third place, my right hon. Friend will satisfy the lawyers who appear before the bench. The point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Wilkes) that lawyers do not like appearing before a bench that is advised by a non-profes-sionally qualified magistrates' clerk. I attempted to rebut that, but if it is the


case that lawyers feel in some difficulty, the position will be greatly eased by the fact that the bench is to be guided by a fully professionally qualified man. It is also a good thing for the magistrates that my right hon. Friend should have found this solution. They will know, when they make their appointment, that they are making it from an adequate list of able, and efficient justices' clerks. The justices ' clerks will appear before them with their full professional qualifications, and in addition to these qualifications they will have acquired the experience which can only be acquired by service in the courts.

It only remains to be certain that the Law Society will generously implement the promises they have given to my right hon. Friend. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity in this regard, and I am certain that they will do everything possible to remove every financial embarrassment to an assistant who wishes to become professionally qualified. If ' they do that, then, instead of having Clause 20 as originally drafted, we shall have a Clause that will satisfy everyone concerned about this problem. I offer my sincere congratulations to my right hon. Friend for having found such an admirable solution of this very difficult problem.

Mr. Hale: My right hon. Friend has dealt with this matter so fully, so effectively and so clearly that I should not have thought it necessary to have added anything but for certain misconceptions which still appear to exist in the minds of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and some of my hon. Friends as to the position of solicitors. When I was articled some 32 years ago, we had to pay a stamp duty of £80 on the articles, and my father had to pay a premium of 300 guineas. I served for five years without a penny by way of remuneration, which was the normal procedure, and paid a £30 stamp duty on the admission certificate. My boss then offered me £3 a week, which I refused, and I got a job at £4 a week, which I left, and spent £2 12s. 6d. on a brass plate and started on my own. That was the net return for five years.

Mr. Cecil Poole: What has it been since?

Mr. Hale: I could supply the earlier figures, if my hon. Friend likes.

Mr. Poole: We want them up to date.

Mr. Hale: I so rarely see my practice that I should have to ring up to find out whether we are making a profit or not.
That was the normal procedure, and in fairness to the Law Society it is right to point out what is the position now, and also in fairness to the Government. The £80 stamp duty was abolished by this Government, and so was the £30 stamp duty. It is not now the normal practice for a premium to be paid, although in some districts it still goes on, and I have protested about it in Lancashire. I have had many articled clerks without any premiums of any kind being paid. It is open to a lad to go to a solicitors' office as an office boy, and then, if after a few years' service he shows himself to be efficient and bright, it is in the solicitor's interests, as well as in the interests of the lad, to article him and pay him wages, as well as giving him time off to take his examinations.
The hon. and learned Member for Brighton, who knows how easy it is to pass the Bar examinations, seemed to think that the examination will be recondite and will demand special ability, but if he looks at some of the solicitors he will know that is nonsense. One does not need any brains to qualify as a solicitor, but one has to go through hard toil and graft, and it is right that one should. It is reasonable that a person should qualify with a fairly wide knowledge of the law, which I am bound to say has not become any less complex during the last four and a half years. If we are to continue with the lay justices at all—and this Bill is very much in favour of that, and so am I, because taking it by and large they are one of the best tribunals in the country—then the really essential thing is that a qualified clerk should rule on law.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Not "rule," advise.

Mr. Hale: That has been the policy.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member says that a qualified clerk should rule on law.

Mr. Hale: That is precisely what I meant to say. My view has always been that, on matters of law, the learned clerk should rule. The hon. and learned Member is quite right that this is not


the position at the moment; that they advise and the bench can reject the advice. I am more attracted to the position of a judge advocate at a court martial—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: However much attracted the hon. Member may be to the position of a judge advocate in a court martial, the magistrates' clerk has no power to rule.

Mr. Hale: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me to finish, he will understand what I am saying. I am much more attracted to the position of the judge advocate who has to rule on the law in a public court, and having done that, takes no further part in the proceedings. Similarly, the clerk should give his ruling, although this is not relevant to the proposal now before us.
The whole trend has been to appoint full-time clerks, although one knows of many cases where solicitors are very excellent part-time clerks and loyal servants. The position of the practising solicitor who is also a clerk to the magistrates gives rise to an anomaly that was mentioned earlier today in a slightly different type of case. There is an inevitable conflict of interest where the clerk to the magistrates finds himself advising the bench when it is trying one of his own clients. The position is very difficult, because justice must not only be done but appear to be done. Therefore, the trend of events is towards a full-time clerk and the combination of adjoining magisterial districts.
I accept the view that the position of the qualified clerk to the unqualified clerk is an impossible one. The unqualified clerk serving a qualified clerk is also in a difficult position, and this Clause will go far to deal with that. I am sure that once it has been put to the Law Society they will accept that point of view. I do not always agree with the Law Society, but I had a letter from them on this matter, which I read with pleasure before writing back to say, "For once I agree entirely with you. This is progress," although we have not agreed on whose part the progress has been made.
Everyone accepts that the new Clause which has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) was put before the House with com-

plete sincerity to meet a point of view that most of us had in mind. It was put forward with the intention of helping the so-called unqualified clerks, many of whom are better qualified, from the point of view of long experience, than some of the qualified clerks. One of the best clerks I ever appeared before had no qualification at all until a few days ago, but he was, nevertheless, an exceedingly able lawyer. The trend of this discussion shows that a real difficulty will be met by the Home Secretary's proposed Clause and that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton would create a highly anomalous and unnecessary position for the half qualified men in a limited job, who would be worse off at the end of the process, than they are without it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) has made an attempt to solve a problem to which attention was drawn on the Committee stage. I disagreed with him then, and supported the Home Secretary in his stand for a qualification for justices' clerks. That being so, I am a little sorry that my hon. and learned Friend should have been subjected to some criticism by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) for pursuing that course. I think most of us will agree that the Home Secretary has found the better solution of the two, and I shall certainly support the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment when it comes before us. I really rose, however, to express the hope that, having considered both these matters, we could now call a halt to this discussion. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will feel satisfied that his new Clause has achieved his object and that we shall be able to get on with the other parts of the Bill, on which I hope discussion need not perhaps be so lengthy.

Mr. Marlowe: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few moments, as we have had a full discussion, but I cannot accept the invitation of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) to withdraw the Clause, although, from the tone of the Debate, I have no doubt that it will be negatived. I cannot leave—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I thought the hon. and learned Member was about to withdraw his Motion; he cannot make a second speech.

Mr. Marlowe: As I moved the Motion I thought I was entitled to reply. If not, may I, with the leave of the House, say that I appreciate that the Home Secretary has made an effort to go some way with me on this matter? The position is better than if it had never been raised at all, and I think we can feel that we have achieved something.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 7.—(RESTRICTION ON RIGHT TO PRACTISE AS SOLICITOR.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Ede.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Is not my Amendment, in page 5, line 23, after "partners," to insert "all employees," being selected, Sir? It is an Amendment which the Government said they would consider. The point raised by this Amendment is not, I think, raised by the next Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the Home Secretary. If my Amendment is not selected, it prevents me from inquiring into the reasons why this particular point has not been met, although the Government said they would consider it.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Further to that point of Order. I had hoped that we had met the point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was going to deal with it on the Government Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker decided not to select the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) because he was satisfied that it was covered by the next Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Then in case I can convince the Government that the words of my Amendment ought to go into the Bill, could we not take my Amendment and the Government Amendment together?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I think I have power to allow that.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I appreciate the improvement in the Government Amendment in page 5, line 27, but I should like to explain why, in my view, that Amendment does not meet the point I raised on Clause 7 during the Committee stage. The right hon. and learned

Gentleman will see that the people who are prohibited by subsection (2) from behaving in a particular way are in only two categories, namely, the solicitor, who is one of the justices, or any partner of his. These are the only two people who are prohibited from practising. The rest of the Clause in its original form, and as it will no doubt be amended, merely goes on to say what they shall not do. The Clause as drawn, and as it will be amended, does not apply to anyone else but the solicitor, who is one of the justices of the peace, and his partner. I suggest that it ought to apply one degree further, to the qualified person in the employment of a solicitor who has no partner.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman quite appreciated that a solicitor can only practise either by himself or through his partner or an employee?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Yes.

Mr. Silverman: If his employee were practising, he would be practising himself, so that the words "or employees "are unnecessary.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been considering this matter. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry has not moved his Amendment, which Mr. Speaker did not select, and I must call the Amendment in the name of the Home Secretary.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, to leave out from "to." to the end of line 28, and to insert:
act in connection with proceedings before any of those justices as solicitor or agent for the solicitor of any person concerned in those proceedings.
We have given careful consideration to this matter, and I entirely agree with the view which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has expressed. I said so in Committee, and I say so again today. We think that this Amendment covers the position of the solicitor who has a managing clerk or other employee who appears before the court. The employee can only appear in that capacity, and the justice-solicitor is properly described as practising before the court when his employee, the managing clerk or whoever it may be, appears for him.
I should like to assure the hon. and learned Member for Daventry that we considered other forms of this Amendment which put in the words "or employees," but after taking advice we came to the conclusion that the form of words in our Amendment was the most appropriate to cover the point in his Amendment. Our Amendment also precludes a solicitor appearing by his agent, so I think it is inconsistent with the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member has put down in page 5, line 28.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I shall not move that Amendment.

The Attorney-General: We take the view that it might be open to serious objection if a justices' clerk who was a solicitor, although unable to appear himself, were able to employ an agent to appear in his cases for him.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I appreciate that there is nothing between us as to our intentions under this Clause. Indeed, as I said in Committee, the Amendment I tabled was of a drafting nature. I must confess that when I first looked at the Amendment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has moved—I had only a short time at my disposal then—I was under the impression that it did not fully cover the point I wanted to see covered. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the trouble he has taken and the assurance he has given. I agree with him that there are certain difficulties about the next Amendment in my name, that in page 5, line 28. I do not know whether it will be selected or not, but if it is, I do not propose to move it. All I can do in those circumstances is to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 37, leave out from "not," to end of line 38, and insert:
subject him or any partner of his to any disqualification under this section.

In line 41, leave out from "not," to end of line 42, and insert:
subject any partner of his to any disqualification under this section."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 8. —(TRAVELLING AND LODGING ALLOWANCES.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 36, at the end, to insert:
which shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
During the discussions in Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) pressed for the insertion of a requirement that the regulations to be made under this Clause in regard to travelling and lodging allowances to justices should be subject to the negative Resolution procedure in this House. We have considered that matter and agree that it should be done. This Amendment makes provision for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10. —(AREA OF COMMISSION.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, to leave out "June," and to insert "December."
This Amendment must not be taken to commit the Government to any final policy in any other matters as to the respective merits of June and December. It is a procedural Amendment in regard to the particular matters dealt with in Clause 10. The Amendment is made because if the population were taken to the nearest 1,000 as at June, 1948, Wednesbury, which had a population on that date of 34,460, would be excluded. Nelson, the next borough in population above Wednesbury, had at the end of June, 1948, a population of 34,500. There was, therefore, a difference of only 70 between them in population, but that 70 was critical on the point whether or not they would be within the scope of the Clause.
It would be obviously wrong to differentiate between these boroughs, and if the population at the end of December, 1948, is taken they are both included, Nelson having at that time a population of 34,540, having gone up by 10 apparently, and Wednesbury a population of 34,660. Accordingly, the Amendment provides that the December date shall be taken so as to include those two boroughs. There are no other boroughs, as far as we have been able to ascertain the position—and we have examined all of them—affected by this Amendment so


far as the position of any quarter sessions within the limit of 20,000 are concerned.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to delay the House in considering this matter, but may I be permitted to intervene for one moment to congratulate the Government on the realisation of the value of the extra 10 people who came to live in Nelson between June and December. 1948, whoever they may turn out to be.
Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, at end, to insert:
(c) that at the end of that month the borough had a separate commission of the peace and court of quarter sessions, and the Lord Chancellor makes an order under subsection (5) of this section saving the grant to the borough of its commission and quarter sessions.
This is the first of three Amendments to page 7 which gives the Lord Chancellor discretion to save a court of quarter sessions and the commission of the peace with which it is associated in certain exceptional circumstances where, both in the interests of justice and because of historical or geographical reasons, he deems it desirable so to do. The Amendments have been introduced to give effect to an undertaking which I gave during the discussion on an Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) put down. That Amendment was withdrawn. It was one which contemplated saving recorderships with their associated commissions of the peace in exceptional cases, and it also contemplated in some cases saving commissions of the peace although they were not associated with any recordership.
Reading through the OFFICIAL REPORT of our Debates in Committee, I am sorry to find that there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), in the course of my speech, in which I was accepting the principle of the Amendment which had been put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, interrupted to say:
May I put a point to my right hon. and learned Friend before he sits down? While I thank him for the manner in which he has dealt with the matter, I should like to point out that he mentioned only recorderships. In accepting the principle of the Amendment, does he also accept that part of the Amendment which refers to separate commissions of the peace? 

I said, "Yes, Sir," and if I had said that alone it might well have been thought, and indeed would obviously have been thought, that I had in my mind that other part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment which dealt with commissions of the peace standing on their own in boroughs which were not quarter sessions boroughs. That was indeed the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton had addressed his question. I am afraid that he and I were at cross purposes as appears quite clear from the qualifications that I gave to that answer. I said:
Yes, Sir. We have taken the view that it would be impossible, without a considerable and complicated alteration in the law, which certainly could not be accomplished in the scope of this Bill, to separate a recordership from the commission of the peace with which it is associated."—{OFFICIAL REPORT 7th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 1940.]
I am afraid at that time I had very much in mind the position of those boroughs which had their own courts of quarter sessions. I should very much regret if I led my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton—I do not think I misled the hon. and learned Member for Daventry or any other hon. Member—to think that I was accepting the Amendment in its fuller scope as including separate commissions of the peace in boroughs which had not got their courts of quarter sessions. I am afraid I had no intention of doing that, and on the Debate on the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment we concentrated our attention on those boroughs which had their courts of quarter sessions. Indeed, almost every speech was directed to the position of quarter sessions and the question whether or not the work of those courts might be made to provide a greater contribution to the administration of justice than they had done sometimes in the past. It is fair to say that the whole emphasis of our discussion was laid on the position of quarter sessions, and we did not deal in any detail with the situation which might arise of boroughs which had not a court of quarter sessions but where there might be special reasons in regard to the commission of the peace.

5.0 p.m.

I am very sorry if my answer on that point misled my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, as indeed I am afraid it must have done. I can only say, on the


merits of the matter, that the Committee having only just fixed the figure of 35,000 as the appropriate one, the optimum figure, below which boroughs ought not to have a separate commission of the peace, we would not have felt then, nor could we feel now, that it would be reasonable to give discretion to the Lord Chancellor to make an exception in those cases. I think that the House would agree that, in discussing that question of separate commissions of the peace, we went a very long way to meet the views of the Committee. Indeed, we accepted exactly the figure which had been put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). After a very full Debate on that matter, I think that the general consensus of opinion was that the figure 35,000 was right and that it would not be appropriate to go below it.

I have made an. explanation which goes a little wide of the present Amendment in order to make it clear that, through my own fault, I am afraid, we were at cross purposes when that question was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, and that it was not our intention, in accepting the principle of the Amendment put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, to include the case of the borough which had no quarter sessions. This Amendment, the first of the three connected with this matter, does not relate to the separate commission of the peace unless there is a court of quarter sessions with which it is associated. We shall have an opportunity on the main Amendment to consider the position of the quarter sessions and the circumstances in which it may be saved by the Lord Chancellor. It may be more appropriate to do it on that Amendment, but I thought it right to make this explanation immediately and at this stage.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been frank with the House in pointing out and making quite clear that his proposals do not now fully comply with the Amendment which I tabled and moved on the Committee stage. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that my Amendment was difficult to interpret. As it was drafted, it seemed clear. I think that he must admit that

the Amendment giving power to depart from the ceilings imposed by Clause 10 applied to the whole of Clause 10 and not just to the cases where there were recorderships. It applied to cases where there were separate commissions of the peace.
I must express regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not, perhaps, pay enough attention to what I was saying in moving the Amendment. I clearly drew attention to the matter at the very outset of my speech. I said:
I am not satisfied, even though some boroughs have now been given a new lease of life so far as commissions of the peace are concerned,
that the administration of justice would not be interfered with as the result of the fixing of an arbitrary figure. Further, I said that the Amendment was
designed to try to state principles which should be applied in determining whether a recordership or, indeed, a separate commission, should be retained when the population is below the ceiling specified in Clause 10.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in replying to me and before the question was put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), said:
… if the hon. and learned Gentleman will now withdraw his Amendment. We undertake to accept his Amendment in principle and to put down an appropriate Amendment on the Report stage."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 1928, 1929, and 1940.]
Hearing those words, I must say that I thought at the time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was accepting my Amendment in principle completely.

The Attorney-General: Did not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that I had gone very much further than he expected me to go?

Mr. Manningam-Buller: I thought that my persuasiveness had reached undue heights on that occasion. I hoped that the weight of my argument would make some impression upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I was delighted to find that it had made a considerable impression I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone the whole way when the question was put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and the answer was "Yes." From what he went on to say, I think


it is clear that the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite wrongly fixed at that moment only upon the case of the recorderships. That being so, while I must express my regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been able to go with me quite as far as I hoped, I do not intend to try to pin him down to what was said upon the Committee stage. I would prefer to reserve such comments as I have upon the proposals he has tabled to embody the principles I put forward with regard to recorderships till we come to the particular Amendment.
I am sorry that the Government have not been able to go the full way in giving this discretion where there are separate commissions of the peace, although I appreciate, as I think the whole Committee appreciate, that the Government have gone a considerable way in reducing the ceiling applicable to such commissions. It is a pity that the Lord Chancellor should not have reserved to him power to retain a separate commission of the peace when the population of the borough is below the prescribed ceiling and it could be shown to the Lord Chancellor that there was strong argument on geographical or historical grounds, or on grounds of better administration, for the retention of the separate commission of the peace.

Mrs. Leah Manning: I quite realise, reading through the report of the Debate, that while one's mind was fully occupied at the time with saving those boroughs which had a separate commission of the peace and which conformed to the new ceiling, it was only natural that when the Attorney-General replied "Yes, Sir," it should have made us feel that we had got the whole of what we were asking for, and that the Attorney-General had accepted the full Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I must agree that, reading the whole of what the Attorney-General said it is clear that we rejoiced a little too early and that we were, so to speak, travelling in the street car named "Desire" at that moment.
I cannot help feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) was not alone in jumping to that conclusion. If the House will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT they will see that after

my right hon. and learned Friend finished his speech, some other people realised that they had rejoiced too early, because the report says:
Several hon. Members rose —."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1949; Vol 470, c. 1940.]
I can only conclude that the hon. Members who rose at that time might have wanted to say a little more about the subject and about the misunderstanding, and might have tried to plead with the Attorney-General. I see that the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry does not quite agree with that. I think he might take my part for once and not get me wrong about it. After all, nobody knows why those hon. Members rose. I can only assume that they rose for that purpose. In response to an appeal by the Deputy-Chairman, those hon. Members sat down, so that we might get on with the next business.
I suppose it is no use at all to plead with the Attorney-General on this point. I hope that another occasion may arise when we shall be able to ask him for more discretion in this matter. There are some boroughs which, certainly on historical grounds and perhaps also on geographical grounds, ought to be brought within the minimum.

The Attorney-General: I am very much obliged for the way in which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) have dealt with the matter. When my attention was drawn to the obvious misunderstanding that had arisen, we gave the most careful consideration again to the question whether we could deal exceptionally with commissions of the peace with which there were no associated recorderships, and we came to the conclusion that we could not do so. I should be very sorry to think that my answer had misled hon. Members with the result that they did not put down Amendments on the Report stage. It may be some consolation to them to know that if they had put down Amendments on Report stage, we should have had to reject them. For the rest, I must confess that that was not one of my more lucid moments. I can only appear in sackcloth and ashes and throw myself on the mercy of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 35, leave out from "the," to "His," and insert "passing of this Act."—[The A ttorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 40, to leave out "seventy-five," and to insert "sixty-five."
This is really consequential on the matters we discussed when the Bill was re-committed this afternoon.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:

In page 8, line 18, at end, insert:
(5) The Lord Chancellor may make an order saving for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section the grant to a borough of its commission and quarter sessions if—

(a) the borough council applies for the order not later than two months after the date of the passing of this Act or within such further time as the Lord Chancellor may allow; and
(b) the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that it is desirable to save the grant to the borough of its commission and quarter sessions on account—

(i) of the assistance the borough court of quarter sessions has given or is likely to be able to give in the administration of justice in the county which includes the borough; and
(ii) of historical or geographical reasons; and it shall be the duty of the recorder for the time being of any borough named in an order under this section, before he fixes the date for holding any quarter sessions for the borough, to consult the chairman of the court of quarter sessions of the county or quarter sessions division of a county in which the borough is situated or (failing the chairman) the deputy chairman or one of the deputy chairmen of that court.
(6) The power of the Lord Chancellor to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.

The Attorney-General: This is the second and the main of the three Amendments dealing with the power which will now be given to the Lord Chancellor to exercise an exceptional discretion to save the commission of the peace and the court of quarter sessions in boroughs having a population of under 20,000. We have discussed this matter very fully on the Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) put down in Committee and I think that I need say very little about it. I should perhaps say that we would not want it to be thought

that this power was going to be exercised very widely. It is on the face of it a power to be exercised in exceptional circumstances, and the Lord Chancellor will have to look with great care at any applications which may be made to him for the exercise of the power.
When we discussed the matter in Committee I pointed out that owing to the dates at which quarter sessions had frequently been fixed, and perhaps also to other considerations, the procedure of cross-committals under the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, had not very frequently been employed and that there were few, if any, courts in this category—I mean the category of boroughs with a population of under 20,000—which were at present making any significant contribution to the administration of justice, but I said that it seemed to me that there might be a few cases—not many—in which an alteration of the dates of the sessions might result in the courts attracting a certain amount of work from the county and consequently making a useful contribution to the administration of justice in the county.
Under this Amendment the Lord Chancellor will be prepared to consider whether in a particular case by altering the dates of the sittings and by other arrangements the courts could usefully assist in the administration of justice in the county as a whole. If the Lord Chancellor comes to the conclusion that arrangements could and are likely to be made which would enable the courts so to do and that there are historical and geographical reasons—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Historical or geographical.

5.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I am much obliged—historical or geographical reasons in addition which make it desirable to save the grant of quarter sessions and a separate commission to the borough, he will do so. If he does so it will become the duty of the recorder—this is a point of some importance, although there is no immediate sanction attached to it—to consult with the chairman of the county quarter sessions in order to see at what dates it would be most convenient to fix the borough quarter sessions so as to secure cross-committals and assist the county quarter sessions in its work.
I think that is all I need say at this moment about the Amendment, except to add that applications for the exercise of this discretion by the Lord Chancellor have to be made within a period of two months from the passing of the Bill. I thought at first sight that that seemed a rather short period in view of the Christmas vacation and so on, but on studying the matter it seems necessary that the period should be a short, limited one if the rest of the Bill is to be brought into operation. A great deal depends on the end of the financial year in the case of these boroughs, and that to some extent governs the stages at which the Bill can be brought into operation. We want to get this matter out of the way before the end of the financial year, which is 31st March, and it follows that if the applications are to be properly considered they ought to be in before the end of two months after after the passing of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman moves the Amendment I would point out that he said a few minutes ago that that was all he wanted to say at the moment. He, like any other hon. Member, cannot speak again without permission.

The Attorney-General: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I beg to move the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded his lucid exposition of the Amendment by a reference to the time within which an application can be made under it. I agree with him that at first sight the period of two months seems a very short one. Unless action is taken by the borough council within two months of the passing of the Act the new provision will be of no effect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the end of the financial year, the effect of Christmas, and things of that sort, but I fancy that he has not given sufficient consideration to the position of recorders who are candidates for Parliament. In the event of the election taking place within the next two months, they may find it very difficult indeed to take advantage of these provisions. I assume that should such an event occur the Lord Chancellor would be willing to grant

some further time for the making of the application. Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to say that there is no possibility of that occurring and that the question does not really arise.
As to the rest of the Amendment, I was sorry to hear him say that it gave a power which would only be used in exceptional cases. I think it is a power which should be used when the case can be brought within the categories specified in the Clause. I believe that a great deal more use can be made of these courts of quarter sessions in boroughs with small populations, more use with an improved administration of justice and at less cost, and I hope that great regard will be had to that in considering such applications made under this Clause.
I am sure that by a re-arrangement of dates, which can be done very often by agreement—therefore I welcome the provisions in the Bill dealing with that—the burden can be more fairly shared between county quarter sessions and borough county sessions in many areas. Merely by taking the population limit without regard to the nature of the communications that exist in the area and the presence of big camps which are not included in the population of the borough, one may do something in letting the recordership go which will not help but will impede the administration of justice.
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for meeting so fully and so adequately the question of dealing with recorderships which I raised in Committee stage. I hope that as the result of this power we may retain some of these recorderships which can play a useful part even if they have not done so in the last few years, and also those recorderships of boroughs with small populations which have been playing a useful part. Berkshire in particular has had a system with small recorderships which has proved extremely useful and beneficial.

Mr. C. Poole: I only intervene in this Debate because of a little wordy duel I had with the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) which may have conveyed a false impression as a result of something you said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. When the hon. and learned Gentleman was suggesting that


certain boroughs not falling within the numerical ceilings should be retained, he mentioned one or two, finishing with Leamington. I interjected "Lichfield" and we got into a discussion regarding the merits of Lichfield. You said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this had nothing to do with the matter. That was true, but Lichfield has everything to do with this subsection and I am glad that the Government has departed from a purely numerical test for recorderships and commissions of peace.
I have listened to many of the cases put forward by hon. Gentlemen speaking for the areas they represent. Those I have not heard, I have read, and I shall not make the case for Lichfield today although that case is probably outstandingly superior to any other case put in this House. I say that because Lichfield has had a recorder and a separate court of quarter sessions for over 400 years. As a matter of fact, Lichfield has been in existence since the year 300 and its first charter was granted as far back as 1387. We have been interested in the administration of justice in Lichfield for probably longer than any other centre in this country.
I was sorry that the learned Attorney should have suggested that there would only be a few, if any, of these recorder-ships and separate commissions of the peace retained because Lichfield adequately fulfils every test laid down in this Government Amendment. It is 16 miles away from the county sessions, and although on the numerical test, which was originally the only test in the Bill, it falls lamentably short in the ratio of population, it being only around the 10,000 mark, by its geographical location in a mining area covering a population of something like 40,000, it can fulfil a need in assisting the county sessions.
If I were to advance the historical claims of Lichfield, the House would be sitting here for the greater part of the night, but I am sure that the Attorney-General will be fully competent and, I hope, ready and willing to look at the historical associations of Lichfield in the administration of justice for the last 1,600 years. I hope he will say that, because of its geographical location, it is one of those recorderships which ought to be retained and that, on the basis

of population and assistance to the county sessions, it also fills the bill.

The Attorney-General: On that point, perhaps the hon. Member would like to add to his claims for Lichfield that it tried 17 cases this year and 10 the year before, which was well above the average.

Mr. Poole: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for helping me with my brief. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will take due note of the partisan approach to the claims of Lichfield for the retention of its recordership. [An HON. MEMBER: "Don't spoil a good case."] I will now sit down, advancing only one point which I admit had escaped me but which the hon. and learned Gentleman made, that further strengthens our claim. He mentioned the proximity of camps with their large populations as having had an impact upon the crime factor. Lichfield has Whittington Barracks., the headquarters of the South Staffordshire Regiment. Occasionally, through alien regiments being located in the barracks, our crime factor is influenced in an upward direction. I feel sure that in view of all those circumstances Lichfield must be one of the few, if any, to be retained.

Brigadier Thorp: I rise to thank the Home Secretary for putting down this Amendment, which meets the case of Berwick-on-Tweed. I was glad that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole) was here today to put his case because it backed up my case and I mentioned Lichfield as one of the four boroughs that had been made counties in 1836.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I rise to support an observation of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in regard to the exercise by the Lord Chancellor of the discretion conferred upon him by this new subsection. I should be sorry if this were to be carried out merely on the test that the case for retaining any of the recorderships in question has to be an exceptional one. I should have thought that the point of this subsection was that in nearly all of these recorder-ships there is a considerable amount of work from other areas which can be shared by them if arrangements for that purpose are made, and that therefore on


practical grounds they should be retained.
I agree that historical grounds are important and ought to be considered and respected, but that ought not to be the salient test. The paramount test should be the practical question whether that quarter sessions can help in expediting and cheapening justice and making it possible for the administration of justice to be worked more effectively and smoothly. Therefore I ask the Attorney-General, in considering this matter, not to be so influenced, as he appeared to be when introducing the Amendment, by his view about exceptional cases since the ' only test ought to be whether quarter sessions can be retained in aid of the better and cheaper administration of justice.

Mr. Hollis: I shall not make another speech on this topic, but may I intervene on a layman's query? With great respect to the learned Attorney, I am not so much concerned about how any exceptional cases will be considered by him because it will be the Lord Chancellor who will consider these cases. With regard to the period of two months, the Amendment says:
not later than two months after the date of the passing of this Act or within such further time as the Lord Chancellor may allow.
Does that mean that each application for extending the time limit will be considered or that some general ruling of extension might or might not be given? From the speech of the learned Attorney it appeared that it was not within the contemplation of the Government, at the moment at any rate—though sometimes they do things they have not contemplated—to extend the period of two months in general. Therefore, if the further condition "or within such further time" has any meaning, it presumably means that in a particular case for some reason—such as my hon. and learned Friend instanced, that the recorder was standing for Parliament—an extension of time may be granted. That is my understanding and I shall be grateful to know if my understanding is right.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I want to take up another aspect of the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has referred. The drafting of the

Amendment is not entirely satisfactory. As I understand the position, the two months' time limit is a period in which the application has to be made, but thereafter there is no time limit of any kind as to how the matter is handled. Once the application is in within' two months, the situation is saved, so to speak, for the time being, and thereafter the Lord Chancellor decides whether he grants the application or not. I do not regard that as the most satisfactory method. I would much prefer the approach which was made in our Amendment, namely, that all the recorderships should be saved and the Lord Chancellor should consider each one on its merits and come to a decision which of them should be allowed to continue. The method proposed in the Amendment now before the House seems to put matters in reverse.
I cannot see the argument of the Attorney-General in referring to the end of the financial year, for there is nothing which requires this matter to be completed by the end of the financial year or by any other date. It might drag on interminably, as far as one can see, because no action is required by the Lord Chancellor. That is why I want to know what is to happen in practice to a court which is due to sit after the Bill has received the Royal Assent and before the time limit of two months has expired.
On the face of it, under the Bill the recordership or the court of quarter sessions would appear to have been abolished; yet, pending the decision of the Lord Chancellor, it would presumably be entitled to sit. Under what warrant would it then be acting? The drafting on these points is not very satisfactory and appears to have been done hurriedly. I well understand there has not been a great deal of time for full consideration on all these points. One is led to the conclusion, therefore, that our Amendment, which was more deeply considered, is far more satisfactory because it deals with the matter from the opposite direction.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there is any time limit for consideration by the Lord Chancellor? It does not seem to me that there is; apparently he makes a final decision at any time as to whether a recordership is to be abolished. It would be far better


to impose a time limit somewhere, otherwise an application from a borough might remain in the Lord Chancellor's office for five years before he ever dealt with it. During the whole of that time, nobody would know whether the court of quarter sessions was to continue or be put an end to.
The way I should like to see the problem dealt with would be to give every existing recordership an opportunity to justify itself. I fully appreciate that there are many which it is difficult to justify on the ground of being necessary for the administration of justice. As the Attorney-General pointed out at an earlier stage, however, in many instances the existing situation arose because of bad timing by the recorder as to when he took his court. Some of them, quite properly, have been open to hostile criticism in that respect.
There have been recorders who have deliberately reduced their work to a minimum by adjusting the sitting to a date immediately following that of an adjacent court where all the cases had been dealt with, and there was nothing left for the recorder to do except to pick up his pair of white gloves. That matter could easily be remedied by some such regulation or enactment as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put into the Clause. I would have preferred the matter to be left as it is for the time being, without the two months' limitation, for an opportunity to be given to each borough to see whether by an adjustment of its dates it could justify its existence. This would give an opportunity for full consideration and would allow each case to be considered on its merits.
It may well be that the Lord Chancellor in considering one of these applications will have before him figures for recent years and will say, "Only four or five cases have been tried at each sitting of this court over the last few years and, therefore, I abolish it," although by arranging different dates for the sittings of the court entirely different figures might be produced. I would prefer, therefore, that the opposite way of handling the matter should be adopted in order to give an opportunity for rearrangement of dates, and that recorder-ships should not be considered by the Lord Chancellor until they had taken this

action; and it is against that background that the decision could be arrived at as to whether or not they should be abolished.

The Attorney-General: I do not know whether the House will allow me to reply to the points which were raised by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). I cannot help thinking that the right hon. and learned Member has failed to appreciate that the course he proposed—namely, that boroughs should have unlimited time within which to put forward applications for the retention of their recorderships and commissions of the peace—would make it quite impossible to implement the main provisions of the Bill within any set time-table. Until it has been settled whether or not a commission of the peace in a borough of under 20,000 inhabitants is to be retained, no arrangements can be made in regard to the magistrates' clerks' committee and the other arrangements for the appointment of a joint clerk and so forth which are contemplated and are part of the main structure of the Bill. If the Bill is to be brought into operation, it is quite obvious that there must be some time limit.

Mr. Marlowe: I did not suggest that there should be no time limit, but that the Lord Chancellor should approach the matter from the opposite direction and should consider each case on its merits. I would do away with the question of application altogether so that the Lord Chancellor can take action whenever he likes.

The Attorney-General: That is a quite unfair burden to put upon the Lord Chancellor and might result in his imposing on boroughs, courts which they no longer desired to maintain. The whole case which was put forward, and which we accepted on the Committee stage, was that there were some boroughs which urgently desired to retain their commissions of the peace and their recorders courts. If they cannot make up their minds within a limited period, I am afraid that those separate commissions and recorders courts will have to go. The Clause definitely throws the onus on the local authority, in consultation, I have no doubt, with the recorder, to say whether or not they consider that they come within


the special provisions of this discretionary power. It is only in that case that the Lord Chancellor will be able to consider this matter.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I put to the Attorney-General a question with which, I think, he ought to deal? Suppose that the application is made towards the end of the two months—say, at about the end of next February—some time must elapse for the application to be considered, and perhaps the Lord Chancellor would want further information. I do not imagine that the application would be turned down because that information was not sent with it. What is to happen about the holding of quarter sessions in that borough in the first quarter of next year?

The Attorney-General: I had intended to deal with that. It is an important point which was touched upon by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton. The Lord Chancellor will obviously have to place himself in a position to deal with all the applications which may be made under this Amendment, and to have dealt with them before the Clauses of the Bill which would otherwise involve the abolition of the separate commissions of the peace and the recorderships come into operation.
The hon. and learned Member will recall that under Clause 45 there is provision for bringing different parts of the Bill into operation at different times, and we shall meet the situation by the use of that Clause. The position will therefore be that for the first two months after the passage of this Bill at all events, these courts will continue to exist because those Clauses which will eventually abolish them will not be brought into operation. On the other hand, the Amendment which we are seeking to put into Clause 10 will be brought into operation immediately. There will therefore be two months' interval during which the courts will continue and the commissions of the peace will subsist, but the local borough council will have to make up its mind. After that, the matter may well be delayed for a little time for the Lord Chancellor to decide how to act on the application He may want to have further information, etc. That situation will be protected by the power under the Bill not to bring into operation the Clauses abolishing the

courts until he has disposed of all the applications made to him.
It will be quite clear that some period has to be set to the time in which the borough councils will make their application. The reason why two months has to be fixed—I avoided explaining it when I was previously addressing the House because it is rather complicated—is that if the financial provisions of Clause 27 are to be brought into force, as is hoped, on 1st April, 1951, the magistrates' courts committees must be set up at least six months before then in order that they may deal in the intervening period with the questions relating to salaries of the clerks, etc. on which their determinations will take effect on 1st April, 1951. Before the magistrates' courts committees can be set up under the Measure, the provisions of Clause 10 abolishing separate commissions of the peace and separate recorder-ships must have been brought into operation. The result is that unless we set back the whole administrative programme contemplated under this Bill these questions of what commissions of the peace are to survive have to be dealt with, and they have to be included or not included as the case may be in the area of the magistrates' courts committees, before the end of this financial year, which really leaves only two months.
I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Devizes. The power taken enables the Lord Chancellor to make an extension of two months either generally or in particular cases and the reason why that power was included was two-fold. There might be some special reason in a particular case, or for one reason or another the administrative programme might be delayed and therefore there would be no need to insist even generally on the two months' period. I considered this matter very carefully because two months seemed a short time as a timetable to be laid down in the Clause, but subject to the power I have mentioned it appeared essential.

Mr. York: Does the Attorney-General consider that the Amendment precludes the Lord Chancellor from considering the case of liberties?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that liberties are covered by the Amendment. Now that I am on my feet I should add, to remove misconceptions, that when


I said that the Lord Chancellor would only be able to deal with these cases exceptionally I did not mean that if particular boroughs satisfied the criteria laid down in the Clause they would even then only be treated exceptionally. It seemed to me, as I said in Committee, that only exceptionally would boroughs be able to bring themselves within the criteria.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 31, leave out "June," and insert "December."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 11. —(JUSTICES AND COURTS IN LONDON.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 25, leave out "1925," and insert "1949."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 12. —(LICENSING AUTHORITIES FOR NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS.)

5.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(4) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section the confirming authority in any borough mentioned in Part III of the Third Schedule to this Act or in an order of the Lord Chancellor under section ten thereof shall be a joint committee of the borough justices and justices for the county in which the borough is situated (constituted in accordance with section four of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910), if and so long as it appears to the borough justices expedient having regard to the small number of the borough justices available to act as members of a confirming authority constituted as provided by subsection (2) of this section.
This is in order to provide for licensing authorities which retain their commissions under Part III of the Third Schedule, or exceptionally under an order of the Lord Chancellor.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Mr. Manningham-Buller.

Mr. Marlowe: On a point of Order. Is it not intended to select the Amendment to Clause 16 which stands in my name—in page 13, line 33, at end, insert:
(d) With the consent of the Secretary of State there may be a magistrates' courts committee for an area or any part of an area which at the end of June, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, constituted a petty sessional division consisting of two or more contiguous non-county boroughs if at the aforesaid date each of such boroughs had a population of thirty-five thousand or over.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Amendment is not selected because it is out of Order. It would increase the charge on the counties.

Clause 18. —(POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEE AS TO PETTY SESSIONAL DIVISIONS.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 15, line 8, at the end, to insert:
(c) shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
I think that this Amendment is in the right place although I have some doubts whether it should, with a slight alteration, be in line 1 or in line 8. I do not think this point was raised on the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would look at all these questions and I gather that he has had a talk about them with my right hon. Friend. I do not want to press the Amendment with any great vigour but it is a position which the right hon. Gentleman should be able to meet. It is a case in which it should be possible to pray against a statutory instrument. Clause 18 gives the Secretary of State power to alter petty sessional divisions, and that power is of course exercisable without objection when the local authorities agree. There is no likelihood of a Prayer in those cases in which what is done is done by local agreement, but the House will see that the Secretary of State can override the local authority. Subsection (3) says that the Secretary of State may make an order:
either in the terms of the draft or with such modifications as he thinks fit; 
Where a committee do not want to do what he wants, that is, where it fails to comply with a direction order, or the Secretary of State is dissatisfied with the draft order which they have sent or the report they have submitted in pursuance of such a direction:
he may by statutory instrument make such order as he thinks fit about the division into petty sessional divisions of the area to which the direction related.
Where there is disagreement between the Secretary of State and the magistrates' courts committee representing the area as to the division of the area into petty sessions, and where the Secretary of State overrides the magistrates' courts committee, there ought to be power for those who represent that part of the country,


wherever it may be, to raise the matter on the Floor of the House if they think fit to do so by putting down a Prayer against a statutory instrument. This power of the Secretary of State has to be exercised by a statutory instrument.
This provision really gives him very dictatorial powers if, as the Bill in its present form says, he can override the magistrates' courts committee as to the division of the county into particular petty sessional areas. He can override it by statutory instrument, and if he does that no one can say anything about it. He has complete power delegated to him under this Clause. We can ask Questions and move to reduce this Vote, and that sort of thing, but we can do nothing effective. I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has been very good in meeting us on the earlier cases, that a case does exist for this one.
I think that in Committee, when the question of Clause stand part was being discussed, I ought to have drawn his attention to this argument in addition to the others. I doubt whether, until this Amendment was put on the Order Paper, he had applied his mind to this question. Perhaps he has not had the time. I am not complaining, I am apologising for not having raised this particular point earlier. Having made that apology, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that there is some substance in the point and that he will accept this Amendment to meet it.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman has very fairly said that he did not raise this matter when we discussed the general position on Committee, but my right hon. Friend did then undertake to 'consult with hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite. He in fact wrote to the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), and later had a talk with him about the matter, and this Clause was not one of those raised at that time. But my right hon. Friend has given the most careful consideration to the desirability of having this Clause made subject to annulment by resolution in either House since the Amendment was put down in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). We have come to the conclusion that in this case, although we have been most anxious

to meet, and have met the hon. and learned Gentleman on other Clauses, it would be inappropriate to make the powers of the Secretary of State subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The House will appreciate that in this matter the Secretary of State is dealing with questions which are really of local interest. He is concerned with matters which, at the most are ones of county administration in regard to the alteration of petty sessional divisions. Under the existing law, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this is a matter for quarter sessions, which can deal, without any reference either to the Secretary of State or to Parliament, with the alteration of petty sessional divisions. But the procedure under the existing law is very cumbrous.
This Clause institutes the new procedure by which the main responsibility for reviewing the county area and proposing alterations in the petty sessional divisions, if those are thought desirable, will repose with the magistrates' courts committee. That committee is required, in coming to a conclusion about these matters, to consult all the local authorities and the magistrates concerned, and to comply with requirements as to the notice to be prescribed, which it is intended should include a public notice of the proposals.
The final responsibility rests with the Secretary of State. He is given power to cause a local inquiry to be held in the matter, and no doubt he would exercise that power if it appeared that there was local disagreement, and he might have to act in a way which would result in imposing some decision of his own against the wishes of some part of the area concerned. We think that in those circumstances the local interests are fully protected under this Clause in regard to what is after all a local rather than a national matter. There is no reason why Parliament, which has no concern with this problem at all at present under the existing law, should require the right to annul the action of the Secretary of State.
The Clause provides every possible safeguard for the interests of the local authorities and ensures that local opinion is fully consulted and taken into account when an order is made. At the end of the day, after that has been done, and perhaps after a local inquiry has been held, the matter will still remain one of


local concern. Moreover, if one were to add to the procedure under the Clause the further requirement that the order of the Secretary of State should be subject to the negative Prayer procedure in this House, there would be an additional delay of machinery which already will involve a considerable lapse of time before the Secretary of State is able to make his order. Indeed, there are some people who think that the Clause already provides for too much delay and too much local inquiry and consultation with local interests—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: And not enough centralisation.

The Attorney-General: —and I hope that on reflection the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that he need not press this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 20. —(QUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES' CLERK.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The next Amendment, in page 18, line 7, in the name of the Home Secretary, is to be moved with two alterations in the wording on the Paper, namely, in paragraph (b) to delete, "in an employment," and after the word, "made," to insert: "after he has had five years' service as such an assistant and."

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 18. line 7, at the end, to insert:
(3) A person who has not been bound by and served under articles as required by paragraph (a) of section fourteen of the Solicitors Act. 1932, but has served as assistant to a justices' clerk, may be admitted a solicitor of the Supreme Court, subject to the following provisions—

(a) the person to be admitted shall have had not less than ten years' service as such an assistant and, out of that service, not less that five years shall have been before the 'first day of January, nineteen hundred and sixty, and not less than the required number of years shall have been approved service;
(b) for the purpose of the foregoing paragraph "approved service" means service either as an articled clerk or with respect to which the person to be admitted has obtained from the Law Society a certificate under this section on an application made after he has had five years' service as such an assistant and before the said first day of January, and the required number of years of approved service is the number which that person would, apart from this subsection, be required by the said Act to serve under articles entered into at the date of that application:

(c) the Law Society may grant a person a certificate with respect to service in any employment as assistant to a justices' clerk if they are satisfied that at the time of granting the certificate it is not practicable for him to serve as an articled clerk in that employment, and the certificate shall relate to any service by him in that employment after that time;
(d) subject to the foregoing paragraphs, the Solicitors Acts, 1932 to 1941, shall apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to a person's certificate under this section and a person applying for or obtaining such a certificate as if the certificate were articles of clerkship and the service to which it relates were service under those articles."
We had a full discussion on this Amendment earlier this afternoon and it then commended itself generally to the House. I do not think it necessary to say anything further in support of it. The alterations which you have read out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, make known the essential difference to the Clause, and they are the result of negotiations I mentioned earlier which have been effected at very short notice.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 18, line 20, to leave out "fifty-five" and to insert "sixty."
This also carries out an arrangement which is really part of the previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21.—(FUNCTIONS OF JUSTICES' CLERK AS COLLECTING OFFICER.)

Amendments made: In page 19, line 15, leave out from beginning, to end of line 20.

In line 20, at end, insert:
and section four of the Married Women (Maintenance) Act, 1949, shall apply to orders under any enactment directing payment to a justices' clerk as collecting officer on behalf of any person as it applies in relation to orders under the enactments mentioned in that section directing payment to him on behalf of a married woman.

In line 26, leave out "1925," and insert "1949."

In line 30, leave out, "under the said section thirty."

In line 32, at end, insert:
Provided that, in relation to an order made under section five of the Licensing Act, 1902, on the application of the husband, there shall be substituted for the reference in this subsection to the applicant for the order a reference to his wife.

In page 20, line 9, after "personally," insert:
and in relation to an order made under paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section five of the Licensing Act, 1902, and not directing payment to the applicant's wife personally.

In line 11, leave out from "1914.' to end of subsection.—[Mr. Ede.]

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Ede—the Amendment in page 45, line 42.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. On the question of Clause 31, the Minister said during the Committee stage that he would reconsider that provision and an Amendment has been put down in my name to leave out that Clause so as to hear the result of that consideration.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker's marked Order Paper shows a query there. I understand that during the Committee stage the Amendment was withdrawn after 25 minutes' discussion.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It was withdrawn when the Minister said that he would look at the position again. I have the passage in HANSARD from which I can quote.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman may move the Amendment.

Clause 31. —(APPOINTMENTS UNDER PREVIOUS ACTS.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 32, line 14, to leave out Clause 31.
This Amendment was tabled in this way to find out why it was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has come to the conclusion that Clause 31 was so perfect that it could not be improved upon. He will remember that earlier I drew attention to the fact that under subsection (2) the requirement of seven years' practice at the Bar immediately before appointment as a stipendiary magistrate was dispensed with, and that in future it would be quite enough for a person to become a solicitor, to be called to the Bar, never to practise either as a solicitor or as a barrister, and still be eligible for appointment as a stipendiary magistrate. That is setting a wide field.

Mr. Harrison: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman moving the Amendment to delete Clause 31?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry if the hon. Member has got lost. I will try to put him on the right road again.

Mr. Harrison: We were lost between the Amendments that were moved formally and the one which the hon. and learned Gentleman is now moving.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry, that the hon. Gentleman is in such a fog. I fear that it may be a chronic condition, but I hope that it will ultimately, disappear.

Mr. Harrison: The position is clear now.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am glad that the fog has been removed. If there are any other questions I can answer I shall be glad to do so.
I should like to ask why the Clause has not been amended to make it clear that no one can be appointed to one of these responsible positions unless he has practised either as a solicitor or as a barrister. That requirement is not in this Clause. In, my opinion, it is a necessary requirement. It would be very bad if the field were so enlarged that anyone following another profession—a civil servant, a soldier or a sailor—could qualify as a barrister or as a solicitor and could carry on in their old profession for another seven years and become eligible for appointment. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not intend that. As a matter of drafting, I think he ought to have reworded the Clause to make it clear that that cannot be done. I must say that I am disappointed that he has not done so, and I should like to hear his reasons-for the omission.

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is rather unsatisfactory to leave this, matter in its present position, because the Clause as drafted would allow the appointment of anybody who has never practised at all. It has always been part of the requirement of the law for appointment to the Metropolitan magistrates' bench that a man should have been a barrister in practice—not merely in practice but in practice in the seven


years immediately preceding the appointment. I remember particularly this matter arising when an appointment was made during the war. I took up the question on that occasion. There was some question about whether the person appointed had actually practised in the period immediately preceding the appointment. It was suggested to me at the time that it was an unwise subject to pursue, inasmuch as many people were away at the war and if there was a literal requirement of having been in practice immediately before appointment, then on their return from war service people might be debarred from appointment because they had not been in practice but had been engaged on war service.
It always seemed to me that the proper answer was to introduce legislation to deal with the point. It is a subject which would have met with general sympathy everywhere. The principle ought to be maintained that these appointments should require the person appointed to have been in practice and to have been in practice up to the time of appointment. Particularly is that so of the stipendiary magistrates' bench in Metropolitan police courts, because theirs is a difficult task. It is one which they must perform without great assistance from advocates. Very often they have to deal with cases with-out any advocate appearing on either side. They have to grasp rather quickly a number of different cases of a very varied type one after the other. In a morning's work they may be faced with a dozen different problems, all of them requiring not mere knowledge of law but that grasp and that quickness in dealing with the matter which can come only from constant years of practice and which the lawyer acquires almost as his second nature.
It would be most unfortunate if a person engaged in some other entirely different occupation merely by reason of having qualified as a barrister should be capable of appointment, although he has had no experience whatever in practice. There are vast numbers of people who read for the Bar and pass the examinations and then go to some other occupation and never practise at all. I am bound to say, judging from some of those whom one has seen, that one would hesitate very much before appointing them

to the magisterial bench. I hope that the Attorney-General will agree that this is a principle which ought to be safeguarded and that, unless some undertaking is given, the Clause as it stands ought to be deleted.

The Attorney-General: We discussed this matter rather fully during the Committee stage of this Bill, and I think I promised the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that I would look into the position. I have looked into the matter and I hope that I shall not need to take up a great deal of time now in reviewing the position. I accept fully the general argument that candidates ought not to be appointed to positions of this kind without having had practical experience. I would add also what I think the hon. and learned Member's original Amendment in Committee did not contemplate, that it ought to be practical experience in this class of work—criminal experience—which should be taken into acount. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment that we considered in Committee provided only for practical experience in the practice of the law and not in any particular branch of it. I think that one can, so far as legal provisions are concerned, only provide for practical experience in the practice of the law.
The view put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry and the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) would be satisfied if one put in a provision that the barrister or solicitor concerned must have had experience in practice as such for seven years, notwithstanding the fact that the practice might have been in relation to patent or Chancery matters which could not fit him in the slightest degree for the duties of a stipendiary magistrate. We take the view that the Lord Chancellor in making these appointments should, of course, have regard to the extent to which the candidate for appointment has had practical experience in the practice of the law and, in particular, in the practice of that branch of it with which he will be concerned if and when he comes to be appointed as a stipendiary magistrate.

Mr. Marlowe: That is precisely the argument which I used on qualified clerks, and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman rejected.

The Attorney-General: Yes, but I am dealing with the particular argument which the hon. and learned Member put forward with regard to this Amendment, and I do not think it would be useful to take up an argument which he used in regard to some other Amendment. We have looked at this matter and have come to the conclusion that it would not be useful to include the Amendment in the Bill, because it would not secure the kind of experience which all hon. Members agree it is desirable that stipendiary magistrates should have. To include any Amendment of that kind would be quite inconsistent with the existing law on the matter. It really would be impossible to require that candidates for appointment as stipendiary magistrates in the Metropolitan district should have these qualifications without a similar requirement in regard to stipendiary magistrates outside the Metropolitan district, in regard to recorders or in regard to the holders of high judicial appointments.
These matters have hitherto been regarded as matters which might be safely left in the hands of the appointing authority, in this case the Lord Chancellor, who will have regard to all the circumstances and all the qualifications, and will not doubt pay the greatest attention to the question whether or not a candidate has had practical experience of the work of a magistrates' court. I hope that, in these circumstances, the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept my assurance and will see fit to withdraw his Amendment. I would also point out a matter which has caused some confusion on this side of the House: that whereas in the Committee stage the hon. and learned Gentleman sought only to delete subsection (2) of this Clause, he now seeks to throw the whole Clause out of the Bill, and, according to my instructions, that is similar to throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I can speak again only with the leave of the House. May I point out that it was not my desire to inflict any cruelty on the baby, but that I thought this to be the simplest way to raise this particular point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Second Schedule. —(PROVISIONS CONSEQUENTIAL ON CHANGES IN COMMISSION OF THE PEACE.)

Amendments made: In page 45, line 42, at end insert:
or in any order of the Lord Chancellor under section ten of this Act.

In page 46, line 42, leave out from "for," to "shall," in line 44, and insert:
any of the cinque ports, other than a borough losing its commission.

In line 49 at end insert:
(2) This paragraph shall apply in relation to the ancient town of Rye as if it were one of the cinque ports.

In page 49, line 39, leave out from "of," to "which," in line 40, and insert "any borough."

In line 44 leave out "those boroughs," and insert "any such borough."—[The Attorney-General.]

Third Schedule.— (NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS RETAINING COMMISSIONS OF PEACE.)

Amendment proposed: In page 54, line 26, leave out from "Cambridge" to end of Schedule, and insert:

"Chesterfield

Hove

Luton

Newcastle-under-Lyme

Poole

Stockton-on-Tees

Swindon

Orders of the Day — PART II

Boroughs with a population between 35,000 and 65,000

Accrington

Ashton-under-Lyne

Batley

Bedford

Chepping Wycombe

Colchester

Crewe

Eccles

Folkestone

Gravesend

Guildford

Harrogate

Keighley

Kidderminster

Kingston-upon-Thames

Lancaster

Leamington

Leigh

Lowestoft

Macclesfield

Maidstone

Mansfield

Margate

Morecambe and Heysham

Morley

Nelson

Port Talbot

Ramsgate

Reigate

Richmond (Surrey)

Rochester

St. Alban

Scarborough

Shrewsbury

Stafford

Sutton Coldfield

Torquay

Tunbridge Wells

Wallsend

Wednesbury

Weymouth and Melcombe Regis

Orders of the Day — PART III

Quarter sessions boroughs with a population between 20,000 and 35,000

Bridgwater

Deal

Dover

Grantham

Hereford

King's Lynn

Newark

Penzance

Pontefract

Salisbury

Winchester

Windsor."—[The Attorney-General.]

6.15 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I should not like this occasion to pass without welcoming the fact that Torquay has been included in this list. It is the most distinguished name in that part of the list. May I also, as a West Country man with some Cornish connections, say how glad I am to see that Penzance has also been saved? It is one of the oldest boroughs in the country; in fact, Penzance was there long before the Saxons or anyone else came to this country, and is purely Celtic. I think every hon. Member would also join with me in saying that we are glad that Windsor is preserved as well. I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has now made up the list of those places which will be cut out, and whether he can tell us if it can be published.

Amendment agreed to.

Fifth Schedule. —(MODIFICATIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1937, IN RELATION TO JUSTICES' CLERKS AND THEIR STAFF.)

Amendment made: In page 59, line 30, at end, insert:
Provided that if, in the case of a justices' clerk who is a part time officer, it is not possible to determine on the said date whether he then becomes a contributory employee of the magistrates' qourts committee by virtue of any order of the Secretary of State under

paragraph 1 of this Schedule (whether because his salary under section nineteen of this Act has not then been fixed or because the order gives him an option exercisable after that date or for similar reasons), the reference to be substituted in the said subsection (2) shall be a reference to the date on which it becomes possible to determine that question."—{The A ttorney-General.]

Seventh Schedule. —(REPEALS.)

Amendments made: In page 73, line 28, at end, insert:

41 & 42 Vict. c. cxciii.
The Ramsgate Improvement Act, 1878.
Sections eighteen and nineteen.

In page 76, line 17, column 3, leave out "Sections eighteen to," and insert:
Section eighteen from the words 'and from' onwards, so far as relates to the court of quarter sessions for the county of Kent or any division thereof; sections nineteen and.

In page 77, line 3, column 3, leave out from beginning, to "the," in line 5.

In line 23, column 3 at end, insert:
and subsection (3) of that section from ' and where' onwards."—[The Attorney-General.]

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I should like to express my thanks to the House for the help it has given in getting this Bill through in order that it may reach the Statute Book during the present Session. We have had a number of very interesting discussions during its passage. The discussion has not been exactly non-party, but perhaps was on inter-party lines, and views have been expressed in those circumstances with a freedom which has enabled the progress of the Bill to be followed with both interest and usefulness by those hon. Members who have participated in our deliberations.
We have been dealing with some very great and historic institutions, and the House has, as usual, shown itself to be very tender in regard to the maintenance of the historic traditions of the country where they still play a part in the useful administration of our affairs. We have dealt with those courts which handle the great majority of cases which arise in the country, and it really is astounding to consider the numbers of cases dealt with in magistrates' courts. One then realises how tremendous is the work that has been


done by them. It is therefore very desirable that, from time to time, we should review both their composition and their working so as to ensure that they can rightfully claim the allegiance of the country and that the people shall be satisfied that real justice will be done in them. As a result of our efforts we have, I think, brought these affairs up to date, and I sincerely hope that in their administration in the country they will justify the care and attention which has been given to them in this House.
I particularly welcome the provisions by which the areas of petty sessional benches can, in future, be amended without the very cumbrous and almost unworkable procedure which has been followed in this country since 1828. Twice in my own experience I have tried to work it. Five magistrates have to present a petition that a certain area shall be altered, and then the whole of the areas of the county become open to amendment On both the occasions that I attempted to work it on behalf of a particular district, every other area in the county received consideration while that district was left untouched. However, I had the consolation of knowing that I had considerably improved the administration of justice elsewhere. It is a very good thing that we have been able to get rid of that archaic and cumbrous procedure and to substitute a method by which the magistrates actually concerned, through the magistrates' courts committee, will be able from time to time in future, and without that tremendous machinery being brought into operation, to arrange for the appropriate areas for the administration of justice in the country. I sincerely thank the House for the help they have given the Government in this matter.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sure the House will appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. This is a Bill which crowns the efforts of one committee and one commission—Lord Roche's Committee and the Royal Commission presided over by Lord du Parcq. I have not inquired to see how long that committee and that commission took in their deliberations, but I am sure that we all owe a great debt to those who gave up their time on that work. Then this Bill, largely based upon that work, was introduced into the other place. I am

sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me in saying that it was subjected to a most careful and constructive criticism in the other place, with the result that it came here considerably improved.
I must say that I think that we in this House have not wasted any time in our consideration of this Bill and that our efforts, too, have led to its improvement. That is really how Parliament should work. We have fully considered the position of unqualified assistants to justices' clerks. It was worthy of full consideration, and now a solution has been found which should deal with the matter satisfactorily. I think this House was right to reduce the ceiling with regard to the retention of the commissions of the peace, and I am, of course, glad that discretion has been given to the Lord Chancellor to preserve certain recorderships. At the same time, I do not think that we have wasted any Parliamentary time by devoting so much time to the consideration of this important Measure, for it is important.
I must not, of course, discuss the Bill's omissions as otherwise I shall be out of Order; but people may look at this Bill and still find themselves very ignorant about advisory committees and how magistrates happen to be appointed. I hope that under this Bill we shall get that improved administration and organisation which is the desire of all of us, and I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Attorney-General for the careful consideration they have given on this Bill to all the questions raised from this side of the House and to thank them for meeting us in so many respects for improving the contents of this Measure.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: It is very agreeable to be able to endorse what has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House can endorse what he said because, in a sense, he was patting us on the back and saying that we had improved the Bill. With great respect, I agree with him that i: t has been improved. It was a big and important Bill to start with, and it seems that one of its great merits was that while it did not hesitate to sweep away certain


inefficient devices and outworn machinery, it also did not hesitate to keep in being things which were picturesque and had a long history behind them, and which were proved to be still of utility today. I think that is shown especially in the retention of the power by the Lord Chancellor to retain certain recorderships. A discretion is now left with the Lord Chancellor to retain certain recorderships of proved utility.
It seems to me that there we have flexibility. There has been no worship of rigidity and uniformity for their own sake, though we on this side of the House are often accused of wanting both those things for their own sake. My right hon. Friend has led this side of the House in saying, and carried the House with him in saying, that rigidity or uniformity is not to be desired for its own sake. Flexibility is very often the thing which is desired, and it has been kept in this Bill.
It has been said that this is a nonparty Measure. That, of course, is true in the sense that it has not given rise to controversy along party lines. Even when there has been a difference of opinion it has not been along party lines. But I submit that it should be claimed from this side of the House that this Bill is entirely in keeping with the principles of the party which is behind the Government. It has never been the principle of this party to do away with things merely because they are traditional or picturesque, though very often that is said.
Indeed, it was said to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp), who referred to some remarks of mine as though they were sneering about tradition. I am very sorry that they should have appeared to him to be sneering because that was certainly not my intention. It is the principle of this party that if there is anything that is worth keeping by reason of its usefulness, something which is picturesque and which has a long history behind it, we do not hesitate to keep it. But we do show great courage in the matter of sweeping away those things which have lost their utility and have merely become a burden.
I should like to congratulate the Government on this Measure. It is a landmark, but it is not a Measure which should be regarded entirely in isolation,

It is one of a great series of legal reforms which have been introduced by the present Government, and another occasion upon which a crying legal need has been met, and that by the Labour Government. I think that we on this side are entitled to take great credit for it. There is the Criminal Justice Act, of which, of course, we are now gathering the first fruits in the courts, and the Legal Aid Bill which, for the first time, is bringing in—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, on the Third Reading of this Bill to discuss the Legal Aid Bill, because, if it is, I should like to have said something about it?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member is going beyond the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Mallalieu: I would not think of discussing the provisions of that Bill, but surely it is in Order to relate the provisions of this Bill, as I was intending to do, to other Measures. It is merely a link in a chain—a whole series of legal reforms. I was trying to relate the provisions of this Bill to that series to show how they have brought justice very much within reach of every man in the Kingdom, no matter how humble he may be.
There was a time when those who administered justice in this country were drawn from a very restricted class. By reason of their economic situation they were supposed to have education, and many of them had. Now, of course, that choice has been widened, and this Bill makes a very handsome contribution to the sweeping away of yet another class barrier, in that it is widening still further the choice from which those who are to hold judicial office can be drawn, and that by reason of the provision that is being made for the technical instruction, if one may put it that way, of those who are to hold judicial office as justices of the peace.

Mr. Pannell: Elevation without pay.

Mr. Mallalieu: I think I had better not go into that question. I was saying that this Bill is widening the choice from which those who are to hold judicial office can be drawn, and I am certain that they will hold it with the credit to the benches upon which they sit.
Perhaps I might also mention my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General who have been principally concerned with the passage of this Bill through the House. The Home Secretary has devoted many years of his life to the study and practice of the administration of justice, and he is entitled to all the satisfaction he must feel at the present time for the great part which he has played in these reforms. As for the Attorney-General, who has with such patience and courtesy dealt with all the points that have arisen in our discussions, whether he has been prosecuting Albania at The Hague or prosecuting Haig at the Lewes Assizes, whether he has been probing into the intricacies and tortuosities of "spivdom" at Church House, or merely doing his duty in this House, he has done the whole thing with what I can only describe as almost monotonous brilliance to which we have become accustomed in this House.
This is the 38th Parliament of the reign, and it is drawing to a close. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of pointing out that the next Parliament may be of a different political complexion. I do not know whether that is so, but I feel certain that this Bill shows that the vitality of the party which has a majority in this House has not diminished by one degree, and that that vitality will bring it back in the next Parliament to a position of control, secure in the esteem of the nation.

6.33 p.m.

Mr, Marlowe: I believe it is possible to ascertain the cost of printing an hon. Member's speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I hope that the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) will remember to bring that particular cost into account in his election expenses. He has informed the House, what I am sure will be of great interest to the public, that this Parliament is drawing to a close, and he has thereby belied the Lord President of the Council who has been trying hard to pretend that we are going to meet again on 24th January.
The hon. Gentleman has brought in a number of matters which have nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill, but were entirely directed to securing his return at the next Election. I am glad that he expressed himself as being in favour of

the flexibility which occurs in this Bill. He has certainly been very flexible himself. He is now commending the Clause which was introduced into this Bill on the Report stage by the Attorney-General, relating to the saving of some recorderships. That Clause sprang from one initiated by this side of the House which, the hon. Member for Brigg strenuously opposed. He has now shown himself so flexible that he opposed it on the Committee stage and supported it wholeheartedly on the Report stage.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is it not a fact that the Clause as produced by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and his hon. Friends was of quite a different nature and far wider in its extent; and does not the Amendment introduced by the Government show how flexible in its mind this Government is and always has been?

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman is wise in saying that our Clause was wider. Therefore it was more flexible. The hon. Gentleman is lending himself to the support of a more rigid provision and at the same time is trying to claim that it is flexible.
I shall not take up further time of the House with the inconsistencies of the hon. Member for Brigg, but I feel called upon to take up a few minutes in view of the fact that an Amendment to which I had committed myself to give support has not been called on the Report stage because of the rules of Order. The Home Secretary will remember that when we discussed this matter in Committee I referred to a problem which occurred in Becon-tree. That arises under Clause 16 of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion that he agreed there was a problem which required attention. His words were:
I recognise that there is a difficulty to be met here, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will arrange to see me about this-between now and the Report stage, I will see whether there is something we can do to meet the narrower point. I am sure he now agrees that any arrangement of this sort must be for contiguous boroughs. On that understanding I hope he will consent to withdraw his Amend ment so that we can get on."—[OFFICIAI REPORT, 7th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c 1923.]
On that understanding I consented to withdraw my Amendment. In due course a meeting took place between the parties


interested. I do not think I am saying anything that I am not entitled to say in this matter. In fact, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman indicates his assent that. that meeting was arranged between those interested in this area, in which I am not interested at all except that the matter was brought to my notice and I was asked to represent their interests in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is talking about an area which is not in the Bill He cannot refer to it because it is out of Order.

Mr. Marlowe-: I was addressing myself not to an area which is not in the Bill but to a problem which is covered by the Bill in Clause 16—the creation of magistrates' courts for the areas which are referred to in that Clause. It is not possible to criticise the selection of Amendments, but I only wish that it had been possible to deal with the matter, which I understand was ruled out of Order on the assumption that it involved an increased charge, whereas the whole purpose of the Amendment was to save expense by aggregating the boroughs together.

Mr. Speaker: It was ruled out of Order not because it would necessarily involve a charge but that it might possibly involve a charge. That put it out of Order on the Report stage.

Mr. Marlowe: I had hoped that I "would do the Government a great service by placing an economy measure before them. If the matter remains out of Order I cannot pursue it further.
There are two other points to which I wish to refer. It has been said with some justice by the hon. Member for Brigg that this Bill is part of a line of legislation improving the administration of justice in this country, but I can assure the hon. Member that that process started a long time before the present Government came into office. True, it is part of a process of improving the administration of justice, although not in the way which the hon. Member suggested. He prayed in aid

that it was another implementation of the processes which include the Legal Aid Act. He omitted to remind the House that most of the beneficial provisions of the Legal Aid Act have been postponed owing to the Government having got the country's finances into such a state that they can no longer afford to implement those provisions. That is a part of the story which the hon. Member should have included.
Certainly, as has been said, this Bill has been greatly improved in its passage through the House. It has become all the more improved by reason of the fact that it includes a paragraph, which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted, and which has made a very considerable difference in the case of the borough of Hove. It therefore makes the Bill so much more a better Bill. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought that improvement into the Bill, but of course it still remains a Bill of many compromises and it would be idle to pretend that in many respects it is wholly satisfactory. It has become a Bill of many compromises mainly because of the Government's programme, which has compelled the Government to push the Bill through rather more quickly than would have been the case had it followed the normal course.
I think it was the Government's programme which made it necessary for this Bill to be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House rather than upstairs. Had the Committee stage been taken upstairs I think there would have been many greater improvements. As the right hon. Gentleman said, however, it is a Bill which effects many improvements which have required attention for a considerable time. It puts into effect some of the recommendations of the Roche Committee and of the du Parcq Commission and, so far as it achieves those purposes, it is, I think, a Bill which we should all welcome.

Orders of the Day — ELECTORAL REGISTERS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 39, at end, insert new Clause—(Voting rights of certain persons coming of age during currency of register).

(1) A person who is not of full age on the qualifying date for a parliamentary or local government election in a constituency or electoral area in Great Britain, being an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within the period beginning with the second day of October in any year and ending with the next following fifteenth day of March, shall, if he is of full age on the fifteenth day of June in that year and is otherwise entitled so to do, be entitled to vote as an elector at that election, and the reference in subsection (1) of section eight of the principal Act (which relates to registration rights) to persons who may be entitled to vote as electors at parliamentary elections for which any register is to be used and the reference in subsection (21) of that section to persons who may be entitled to vote as electors at local government elections for which any register is to be used shall, in the application of those subsections to Great Britain, be construed accordingly.
(2) A person who is not of full age on the qualifying date for a parliamentary election in a constituency in Northern Ireland, being an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within the period beginning with the second day of October in any year and ending with the next following first day of April, shall, if he is of full age on the thirtieth day of April in that year and is otherwise entitled so to do, be entitled to vote as an elector at that election, and the reference in subsection (1) of section eight of the principal Act to persons who may be entitled to vote as electors at parliamentary elections for which any register is to be used shall, in the application of that subsection to Northern Ireland, be construed accordingly.
(3) Where, by virtue of subsection (6) of section one of this Act, any part of the register to be used at such a parliamentary or local government election as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section falls to be used at an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls after the expiration of the period so mentioned, the said subsection (1) shall, as regards a person registered by virtue thereof in that part of the register, apply in relation to the election as it applies in relation to an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within that period; and where, by virtue of the said subsection (6 [), any part of the register to be used at such a parliamentary election as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section falls to be used at an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls after the period so mentioned, the said subsection (2) shall, as regards a person registered by virtue thereof in that part of the register, apply in relation to the election as it applies in relation to an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within that period.

(4) The provisions of the Schedule to this Act consequential to this section shall have effect for the purpose of making in the principal Act amendments consequential on the foregoing provisions of this section.
(5) This section and the Schedule to this; Act consequential to this section shall have effect with respect to elections for which registers to be published in the year nineteen hundred and fifty-one and subsequent years are to be used and with respect to such registers and forms to be used for the purposes of such elections.
(6) In this section and in the Schedule to this Act consequential to this section the expression "the principal Act" means the Representation of the People Act, 1949.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
When this Bill was before the House earlier, in Committee, an Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) which raised the question of what was to happen to the people who would have come on the register at the half-year in which, in future, no register will be published, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State undertook to report to me the feeling of the House in the matter. I also had the advantage of reading the report of the discussion which took place and it seemed to me that if it were possible, without imposing any serious additional expenditure on either the taxpayer or the ratepayer, then it was very desirable that some arrangement should be made whereby in practice the advantages of a six months' register should be preserved.
The Amendments which were made in another place secure that. What will happen in future will be that when the canvass is made for the annual register a space will be provided on the form which will enable the householder to enter the names of those persons who, though not 21 on the qualifying date for the annual register, will become 21 before the day on which the intermediate register would have been compiled in the old way. Those people will come into full electoral benefit, if I may use that phrase, on 2nd October in every year.
I think this meets the point that was. before the House. It does not deal with all the people who might have come on to the register. There are, for instance, people who are naturalised during the six months and who become eligible,


therefore, for entry on the register, but of course those people cannot say with certainty when the annual register is compiled that they will be naturalised half-way through the year. There are also, of course, a number of British subjects who may come from abroad and who similarly will not be able to get on to the register, but I think those qualified by reason of attaining the age of 21 are the overwhelming majority of the people concerned and I think the arrangement we have made will meet the point about them.
It is astonishing how many words it takes in a Bill to achieve an apparently simple purpose. I am assured that all these words are necessary to achieve the purpose which the House had in mind and I commend the Amendment to the House in the belief that it fully carries out the point which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State undertook to consider.

Mr. Speaker: I should point out that this involves a question of Privilege and, if it is carried, the necessary entry will be made in the Journals.

Mr. Osbert Peake: During the discussion on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) which had a similar object in view to that which is effected by the Amendment made in another place, I intervened in support of the Amendment, which seemed to me to be quite unexceptionable in principle and highly desirable if, in fact, it could be achieved without great administrative difficulty or great additional expense. We therefore welcome what the Home Secretary has seen his way to do, the effect of which is that if an election falls at any time during the months between October and March a large number of young persons whose enfranchisement would have been postponed by the abolition of the second of the two annual registers will be enabled to cast a vote. They would otherwise have been disqualified from doing so. I must confess that I have much more sympathy with this class of young person, whose position is being safeguarded by this Amendment, than I have with those other persons who acquire British nationality by naturalisation—the persons to whom the right hon.

Gentleman has referred and to whom he he been unable to extend these provisions.
I should like to ask a question as to what additional cost, if any, it is now estimated will fall upon local authorities and upon the Exchequer as a result of the addition of these names in a supplementary list. We have had very unsatisfactory experience in the past on this question of finance. Both the Prime Minister in his broadcast and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement in this House on the economies clearly stated that the saving to the Exchequer by the abolition of the second annual register would be £800,000. When we got to the Committee stage of the Bill we were told that that saving would be divided equally, to the amount of £400,000 each, between the Exchequer and the local authorities, but a few days later, at Question time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a third correction which was that the saving to the Exchequer alone would be £650,000, and no doubt a similar saving is anticipated as likely to accrue to the local authorities.
When the principle of this Amendment was debated in Committee on 29th November, the Under-Secretary of State, who was in charge, said:
If the charge suggested by my hon. Friend were to be introduced at all it should, of course, be done on a much more comprehensive basis, but I think there is no doubt that if one did so attempt it would go some distance at least to defeating the object of the Bill, which is to simplify procedure and to reduce the costs involved in compiling more than one register.
He went on to mention the figure of additional cost of this proposal forecast by the hon. Member for Hornchurch—a figure which the hon. Member for Hornchurch put at £15,000. The Under-Secretary of State said:
I do not know where my hon. Friend got the figure of £15,000 which, I think, he suggested … but I am afraid I cannot accept that the extra cost or the amount of additional labour which would be made necessary by this new Clause is as inconsiderable as the hon. Member suggests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 1050–51.]
I am quite sure that before adopting these proposals the Home Office must have given some consideration to the additional cost these proposals would involve and the amount by which the amendment will reduce the latest estimate of the saving effected by the abolition of the second register—an estimate of


£650,000. I would hope that before we part with this Amendment we shall be told by how much the annual saving will be diminished as a result of accepting this proposal.

Mr. Ede: By leave of the House, I would say that my own belief is that the extra cost of this will be really negligible. It really is the extra cost of printing what may be some 350,000 names spread over the registers for over 600 constituencies. I do not think that on that basis the cost will be very considerable. We have, of course, endeavoured to secure that these names shall be picked up during the course of the ordinary registration. I suppose that if one went into the exact cost one would find that the most costly item of all would be the time taken in some households in writing in one or two additional names on the register. I propose that there shall be space for two names on the forms sent out, because that will allow for twins, and I do not think we should be expected to provide for those families in which fecundity on some occasions is rather higher than that; and if we came across triplets or quadruplets or even quintuplets I have no doubt that their names could be inserted between the lines.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that section eight of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, which was continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, by the Emergency Laws (Continuance) Order, 1948, be further continued in force until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty."—[Mr Ede.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or by Members of His Majesty ' s Household.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that Regulation seventy-six of the Defence (General) Regulations. 1939,

which was continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, by the Emergency Laws (Continuance) Order, 1948, be further continued in force until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty."—[Mr. Ede.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or by Members of His Majesty ' s Household.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the National Youth Employment Council and Advisory Committees for Scotland and Wales (Membership) Order, 1949, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 24th November."—[Mr. Ness Edwards.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or by Members of His Majesty ' s Household.

Orders of the Day — CHURCH OF ENGLAND (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) MEASURES

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I beg to move,
That the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944 (Amendment) Measure, 1949, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
When the Reorganisation Areas Measure was passed in 1944 to enable the Church of England to replan its own organisation in blitzed areas and areas of civil replanning, it included a standstill arrangement to prevent the new arrangements from being held up by fresh life appointments to any benefices that became vacant. The procedure under the 1944 Measure is that the area has first to be declared a reorganisation area by an order of the Church Commissioners. That is only to be done after considering any representations from the parishes concerned. It ensures full publicity.
Once the order has been made, if a benefice is vacant or becomes vacant the bishop may stop a new vicar being put in by the patron. That, of course, is necessary, for otherwise reorganisation may be hampered. Often in these blitzed areas the church has been destroyed, and often the population has not returned. Under the civil plan it may never return. In such circumstances a standstill is only common sense.
This does not mean that the parish is neglected. The bishop has to make all necessary provision for the care of the people in the parish, and he has to consult both the patron and the parochial church council before he settles what ought to be done. Proper arrangements are made, but on a temporary footing. This power to restrict new life appointments in the Measure of 1944 was, however, limited to three years from the declaratory order or the vacancy. At that time everyone hoped that three years would be long enough, but ecclesiastical replanning has to follow and accord with civil replanning, and we all know that the process is more intricate and takes much longer than was expected in 1944. It is going ahead, but the plans are not yet passed.
This Measure extends the period from three years to 10 years. Ten years is chosen because that is the maximum time within which, under the 1944 Measure, proposals for an ecclesiastical reorganisation scheme can be entertained by the Commissioners. The two periods are made the same. The two Measures will be read as one. The Measure was considered by the Church Assembly, and passed without a dissentient voice. There was never greater unanimity. The proposed Measure has been considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and it is commended to the House.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I beg to second the Motion.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I beg to move,
That the Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure, 1946 (Amendment) Measure, 1949, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This Measure has been circulated with the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the appendix to which contains a full statement of the object of the Measure and of the effect of the three principal Clauses. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary that I should detain the House with detailed explanations. The object of the principal Measure, which expires in 1956, is to enable the filling of vacancies in benefices to be postponed,

and also to make provision for the cure of souls in the parishes affected and the exercise of the incumbents' powers in respect of the beneficed property during the vacancy. This postponement is often necessary where a decision as to reorganisation is pending.
This Measure introduces a number of minor amendments which have been thought advisable either because of recent alterations in the law or because of the experience gained in the working of the principal Measure. The proposed amendments have the full approval of the Church Assembly, which passed this Measure through all its stages without a division. As the House will also see, the Ecclesiastical Committee have reported that no amendment by itself is of great importance, but that the combined effect of all of them is to clarify the principal Measure and to improve its administration, and that the rights of none of His Majesty's subjects are prejudicially affected.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I bog to second the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS FOOD CORPORATION (AIR CONTRACTS)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Gage: The matter which I desire to raise tonight—namely, the question of preferential treatment of the British Overseas Airways Corporation by the Overseas Food Corporation—is one of some gravity, and I think the House will agree when they hear the facts that it is one on which an urgent explanation is required from the Parliamentary Secretary. The facts are these. From its inception the Overseas Food Corporation have had to find air transport for many of their personnel between London and Dar-es-Salaam. At first, the arrangements that they came to were on an individual basis, whereby various members of the Corporation should be carried, as to about 50 or 75 per cent., by B.O.A.C. at £146 per seat, and as to the remainder by individual private charter companies at £120 per seat. I do not think that any great criticism can


be made of that arrangement at that stage, bearing in mind that the Corporation was, as it were, in its infancy, and that it of ' course takes a little time for corporations to find their feet in these matters.
However, the discrepancy between the prices charged by B.O.A.C. and the individual private charter companies of £26 per passenger was very soon noted. I understand that officials of the Overseas Food Corporation went to B.O.A.C, pointed this out, and suggested that as most of the personnel being transported from East Africa to London and vice versa were Overseas Food Corporation officials B.O.A.C. might do something about reducing their charges. The answer of B.O.A.C. to that was a flat refusal. So, quite properly—and I do not think any criticism can be made at this stage—the officials of the Overseas Food Corporation proceeded to approach the reputable charter companies in London. As a result of that, a charter company, which I understand is of very good standing, called Hunting Air Travel Limited was selected.
Negotiations commenced with a view to a long-term contract—which of course was more sensible than buying individual seats—which was to last at any rate a year, or to be renewed each year. It was negotiated, and the price per seat—and this, I think, is very significant in a contract of this nature—was £63 6s. 8d. The price that they had been paying to B.O.A.C. on an individual basis was £ 146-odd. Of course, that price of £63 6s. 8d. was to be on the basis of 100 per cent. load factor. That meant a saving to the Overseas Food Corporation of about £100,000 a year.
Not unnaturally, this woke B.O.A.C. up, and instead of the flat refusal which had been given earlier they came along to see the officials of the Overseas Food Corporation. In October, 1948, there was a meeting—and it is of some significance—between Lord Pakenham, Sir Miles Thomas and Sir Charles Lockhart. Now I think that is an unfortunate way of doing business. Private charter companies cannot approach such high personages, holders of such important offices in our country, and I think it should be left to the officials themselves, whose business it is, to do this. However, there was a meeting, and I am happy to say that the Minister of Civil Aviation

appears to have rejected the view of B.O.A.C. that simply because they were a Government Corporation they were entitled, as it were, to be assisted, and to some extent subsidised, by another Corporation. He rejected that view, and as a result Huntings got the contract.
I understand that the contract was carried out perfectly satisfactorily and properly for the period of one year. It was due either to expire or to be renewed—I understand it could expire by notice—on 1st November of this year. Before that certain things happened. The first thing was that in the summer of 1949 a senior official in the Ministry of Civil Aviation drew the attention of an official in the Ministry of Food to certain Questions that had been asked in the House about charter companies operating in contravention of Section 41 of the Civil Aviation Act. The House will know that that was a very proper Section to put in, making it an offence for a private charter company not to pay their servants and staff a proper salary. Of course, it was quite right that that should be so, but the scarcely veiled suggestion in that official letter was that the Overseas Food Corporation might possibly be conniving at an offence as Huntings were paying their people below the proper amount. That was at once investigated by the Overseas Food Corporation and found to be quite wrong. In fact, the staff of Huntings were being properly paid, in some cases in excess of B.O.A.C. I need hardly say that, if an action such as that had occurred in private business it might well have laid the foundation for a substantial action for defamation. However, as it came to nothing I pass to the second matter, which I think is even more important.
B.O.A.C. started negotiations to submit a tender so as to obtain the contract themselves, and on 27th July, 1949, a highly important and significant meeting took place between representatives of B.O.A.C. and representatives of the Overseas Food Corporation. The first thing B.O.A.C. representatives said at that meeting was this: that there had been a luncheon between Sir Miles Thomas and Sir Leslie Plummer at which it had been agreed that B.O.A.C. were to get the contract. Now, of course, at that time the representatives of B.O.A.C. did not know the amount for which Huntings were tendering, and they


were asked what they proposed to tender. They made a tentative approach of £80 a seat, and were told that that was quite unacceptable.
At that point there took place a very significant thing. Mr. Ormerod, who was one of the Overseas Food Corporation officials present, left the conference; he visited Mr. McFadyen, who is Vice-Chairman of the Overseas Food Corporation; he returned to the conference and said that his instructions were that B.O.A.C. were to have the contract, provided they could quote within 10 per cent. of the Huntings contract. At that point, of course, all that the B.O.A.C. officials needed to know in order to make things quite simple for them was the amount of the new Hunting's tender. There again matters were made easy for them, because a Mr. Somerville and Mr. Ormerod left the meeting, went to Mr. Somerville's office and there worked out Hunting's figures for an 85 per cent. load factor—because Huntings had tendered a! a 100 per cent. load factor increasing to a 90 per cent. load factor, which was some £66 per seat. They then added 10 per cent. and found that the answer came to £72 10s. a seat.
They returned to the conference, and the B.O.A.C. officials were informed that if they quoted at that amount they could have the contract. There is no offence known to the law in allowing this matter to become known to people, who, although a Government corporation, were, after all, competing for this contract. There was nothing for which the law could punish any of these people, but I think that I am right in saying that morally such a course was most questionable and it was quite improper.
It is not surprising that as a result of this, on 28th July, B.O.A.C. put in a tender for £72 10s. a seat, which was accepted on 29th July. Notice to terminate the Hunting agreement was given the same day to expire on 1st November. On 1st October this year, a new contract embodying these terms was signed between B.O.A.C. and the Overseas Food Corporation. The result of all this is, that in order that these two great Government corporations should help each other, the taxpayer has to bear the burden of an additional 10 per cent. per seat over the amount which could have been negotiated

with Hunting's. When I say that the Overseas Food Corporation are now carrying about 2,500 personnel per year, that is not a small matter and no small' loss to the taxpayer.
That is not all, because if one wants to buy a ticket to Dar-es-Salaam B.O.A.C. charge £146, and their operational figures on the cost of such a flight work out at £122 10s., so by tendering at £72 10s. they are loosing £50 for every person carried, and that is a burden which the taxpayer must also shoulder. So in order that these two corporations shall assist each other, the taxpayer takes on a really ' heavy burden.
There is even a worse aspect because when the Civil Aviation Bill was in Standing Committee it was recognised by many hon. Members that this great Government monopoly might be in a position to crush out of existence private companies by a system of what might be called subsidised competition. By being heavily subsidised they might be able to tender much lower than any private company could. The Government's attention was drawn to this not once but on many occasions. If hon. Members care to look at the proceedings in Standing Committee of 23rd May, 1946, they will see that this matter was raised on many occasions, and on each occasion the hon. Gentleman who was then in the position that the Parliamentary Secretary is in now gave an assurance that this would not be done. The matter was returned to later on 19th June, when my hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) expressed himself as somewhat dissatisfied with the assurance that had been given, and said that he wanted more than the personal assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary. He said:'
As I said at an earlier stage of the Committee, he may be promoted—let us hope so—or he may disappear—let us not hope so—but in any case, we cannot rely on him being there permanently and on his always being able to see that what he has said in Committee will be implemented.
That was answered by the hon. Gentleman, who said:
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also raised the question of grants for charter services. I shall not deal with that at length because we have already dealt with it at great length. I gave a pledge that public money would not be used for under-cutting private firms in respect of charter work. On several occasions,


it has been explained that it is not possible to write a statutory provision into the Bill for that purpose, but the undertaking which I gave was given, after due consideration, in the name of the Government, and whether I remain in this office or disappear in any manner—either by the trapdoor or the ladder—is irrelevant to the point. So long as I speak here, I do so in the name of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th June, 1946; c. 667–8.].
Here was an undertaking given on behalf of the Government in the firmest possible terms. There can be no doubt, I think, that the very evil that the hon. Gentleman undertook should not occur has now, in this particular case, come to pass.
Finally, in the contract—and this, perhaps, is also a serious matter—with British Overseas Airways Corporation, it was agreed that if the personnel should exceed an anticipated amount, B.O.A.C. would be entitled to charter a special flight carrying 39 passengers at £5,000 per plane. If the personnel exceeded the amount set out in the contract, which seemed very likely judging by the rate at which these air journeys are increasing, it would cost the taxpayer, even if only one person went in this special plane, £5,000. Even if the plane was full, it would cost them about £127 per person. I have tried, with the means that are available to me, to be as precise and accurate in dealing with this matter as I can. I think that I am entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary either to deny or confirm the facts which I have given. If they are correct, I think that I am justified in saying, as I said at the outset of my remarks, that this is an urgent matter of which an explanation is required.
There is, of course, also the matter of the internal arrangements in East Africa with regard to these charter companies, about which I should like information. I should like to know, for instance, whether one contract was negotiated with Airwork Ltd. at 10s. a mile which was afterwards increased to 14s. a mile. If that is so, I should like to know why, and I should also like to know whether a contract was made with Skyways, Ltd. for a Dakota at 7s. 6d. per mile, and is not that amount 30 per cent. above current rates. If so how can that be justified. There is also a subsidiary question about which we are entitled to inquire which concerns these 2,500 gentlemen who apparently find it neces-

sary to travel by air between Dar es Salaam and London. We should like to know in how many cases their journeys are really necessary. The main question, however, remains—the agreement between B.O.A.C. and the Overseas Food Corporation.
These are serious charges. Here are. two great Government corporations that appear to have flouted completely the undertakings given by the Government on behalf of B.O.A.C. They use great resources to filch from respectable private charter companies lucrative contracts which they were operating perfectly satisfactorily, and all at the expense of the public whose interests they are supposed to serve.

7.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) has stated the facts of the case from the information at his disposal. At the end of his speech he referred to contracts stated to have been made between the Overseas Food Corporation and Airwork, Limited and the Overseas Food Corporation and Skyways. I have no information about these contracts, because they are purely commercial arrangements between two organisations and have no relationship to my Ministry. No doubt the information could be obtained from the Ministry of Food.
It is stated that at one time there was a contract between the Overseas Food Corporation and Hunting Air Travel, Limited, for the bulk carriage of traffic between two given points, and that later on a change-over was made from one firm to another following the re-issue of tenders. Surely there is nothing much to complain of in the fact that the corporations are so commercial that they can meet in open competition the tenders of other concerns. The corporations are in a special position which enables them to do it.
The hon. Member stated, in all good faith, that these 2,500 people are being carried by B.O.A.C. at £72 10s. I accept the figure, because I do not know what it is. The hon. Member then went on to say that this is below the normal rate for the journey, and that it means a loss for the Corporation. That is not the case. If


the amount is £72 10s., it is additional revenue for the Corporation. For every passenger carried the deficit of the Corporation is reduced by that amount. A normal scheduled service runs on this route between this country and Africa. To put it in transport language, this is a "fill-up" load. Any vacant seats that are available on these aircraft are taken up by these people at the reduced rate. It means that where there was previously a 60 per cent. load factor, there is now a 100 per cent. load factor, and that this extra 40 per cent. at the cheap rate is a contribution towards reducing the Corporation's deficit.
There is nothing new about this. It is the normal method of running a transport undertaking. I have often said that I was a railwayman prior to entering this House. On the railways we had group tickets and special facilities for ramblers, parties and tours, which made an additional contribution to meeting our overheads and were therefore encouraged. In the case of freight traffic, we had a rate book classifying merchandise and special rates for manufacturers who wished to convey goods in bulk from one place to another. We even had agreed charges that were outside the rate book. I am not personally acquainted with shipping, but from my slight acquaintance with coastwise shipping I have reason to know that the same considerations apply. I believe, too, they apply to what is termed the "long sea haul."
This is traffic which arises on the normal scheduled routes of the Corporation. It is a special traffic which is used as a fill-up load, and it makes a contribution to the revenue of the Corporation without adding a single penny to the costs, apart from such minor things as loading and invoicing. We cannot accept the inference that the cream of the traffic on a given scheduled route shall be given only to charter companies. If bulk traffic is to be creamed off, it means that we are condemning the scheduled services to run at a loss.

Mr. Gage: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is not suggesting that this was an agreement for a scheduled service? It was an agreement for bulk carrying.

Mr. Lindgren: I agree. When one is closely associated with a subject, there is a tendency to use phrases that are not

clear to others. The Overseas Food Corporation are engaged upon a particular undertaking and at a particular place, and of necessity a large amount of traffic in personnel and merchandise arises. It arises on an ordinary scheduled service of the Corporation, and therefore it is normal to expect the traffic to go on that scheduled service. The Overseas Food Corporation, being a commercial undertaking, thought that they should get their traffic carried at the cheapest possible rates. They said that as this traffic was in bulk, we should give them special rates, but they were not available with B.O.A.C, so they put out tenders for the traffic. I think that B.O.A.C. tendered at the same time as Huntings, but Huntings' tender was lower on the first occasion, and the B.O.A.C. tender was lower on the second occasion.

Mr. Gage: I did not say that the second B.O.A.C. tender was lower. On the contrary, it was 10 per cent. higher, and the contract was obtained by discovering Huntings' tender and adding 10 per cent.

Mr. Lindgren: I accept that in all good faith as coming from the hon. Member. I am not in a position to verify his statement, but if it is correct it is a very strange way of fixing up a contract. I am in no position whatever, certainly on the information available to me—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the charter was arrived at in that way?

Mr. Harrison: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the charter companies were in possession of full information about B.O.A.C. charges or proposed charges?

Mr. Lindgren: In reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), I am in no position to deny the statements which have been made by the hon. Member for South Belfast. The hon. Member for South Belfast generally does his best to make sure that the statements he makes in this House are based on accurate information, and I accept what he said. I have no information available to me, and I cannot contradict them. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison), I would point out that the only information available to Huntings


Air Travel, Limited, was the normal passenger rate available on B.O.A.C. scheduled services, the knowledge of the operational cost of the aircraft and their assumption of what the charge was likely to be.
There is, however, one point on which the hon. Member for South Belfast has been completely led astray by those who have given him the information which he has put before the House tonight, and which may show that some of his other information is not in accordance with the facts. The hon. Member said that during the time the Huntings contract was in operation, my Ministry drew the attention of the Overseas Food Corporation to the fact that Huntings were not observing the fair wages clause. That is correct. I think it was absolutely right for my Ministry to call the attention of the contracting department to the fact that their contractors were not observing the fair wages clause. That applies to any contract under any conditions.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is of great importance to a reputable private firm. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that this firm did not observe the fair wages clause because, if so, as that clause is virtually enshrined in an Act of Parliament, why was no action taken if the charge were true, which it is not?

Mr. Lindgren: What I have said is correct and what the hon. Gentleman has just said is incorrect. Further, B.A.L.P.A. took Huntings to the Industrial Court and an award was made against them last August.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If all this was known, surely it is inconceivable that Huntings and other private companies should have been asked to tender for a further period. Our charge is that tendering was reduced to a farce, because the decision had been arrived at to give the tender to a sister Corporation.

Mr. Lindgren: This argument started with my contradicting the argument of the hon. Member for South Belfast, made in all good faith, that this firm have honoured Section 41 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, which is now covered by Section 15 of the 1949 Act. The Ministry had good reason to believe that Huntings

were not observing the provisions of Section 41, and the observance of this Section was a condition of the contract. That was subsequently proved to be the case because B.A.L.P.A. took Huntings, with a large number of other charter companies, to the Industrial Court and got an award made against them. My information, as late as last week, was that in spite of the fact that B.A.L.P.A., as a result of the Industrial Court award, had been trying to get an agreement with these firms, through their Air Charter Association, no satisfactory conclusion had been come to as a result of the negotiations. I do not intend to mince any words about air charter operations. Apart from one or two of the larger charter companies, there is not a single charter firm which is observing the fair wages clause.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford asked why we went through the farce of asking these firms to tender when they were not observing the fair wages clause, and we knew they would not observe it. The air charter business is new and—if I may express a personal view—I have pointed out the desirability of creating a recognised list of those firms which honourably accept wages and conditions in the industry as being fair. Some of the trade unions in the industry have said, "Do not go along too quickly. We will try to encourage these firms to come to an agreement with us." I must say that B.A.L.P.A. in particular, acting on behalf of the pilots, have been most reasonable in their attempts to secure agreements with these firms. I hope we shall soon come to a position in which certain firms which will not recognise the rates as being fair, will be excluded from the opportunity to tender. This is now under discussion by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport, which is the joint industrial council dealing with wages and conditions within the industry.
To sum up this was a tender secured in fair and open competition as between two air operators. Instead of increasing the deficit of the Corporation, it increased the revenue without any additional cost being incurred. It is said that there is a condition in the contract that if the traffic cannot be carried by the normal scheduled service, an additional aircraft must be provided and that because of that, the Corporation are entering the


charter field. I cannot accept the inference that bulk traffic such as this is available only to charter companies. It is available, so long as it is real charter work and they enter it on a real charter basis. The Corporation is available to offer special rates for particular traffic.
The hon. Member for South Belfast made the point that undertakings have been given in this House—he could have gone further and quoted undertakings given in another place—that the Corporations would not enter the charter field. That assurance, in the terms in which it was made, still operates and this in no way infringes it. Charter operations are in the field of traffic of either personnel or merchandise. They are to take a particular load at a particular time from one particular place to another. That field of activity is still open to the charter companies. The Corporation are not entering it. If there is a special load to come from Rome or to go somewhere else, or a special crew to go here, there or anywhere, that is for the charter companies, and the Corporation are not going to enter the special charter field. It is going to enter the field in its own schedule services, thereby securing the maximum possible revenue from the services which it operates, as well as operating as economically as it is possible for it to do.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he elaborate the statement about fair wages which he has made? Is he saying that the charter companies are not paying the agreed rate of wages as laid down in negotiations?

Mr. Lindgren: I have said in this House on many occasions—and we want to get it clear—that apart from one or two of the air charter companies, there is not a single air charter firm which is paying the rates of wages and honouring the conditions of service which are in accordance with the National Joint Council of Civil Air Transport. They are, in fact, paying under the rate and working under conditions which are considered unfair.

Mr. Speaker: Sir William Darling.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of procedure. The hon. Gentleman the

Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), of course, has a right to speak, especially if you, Mr. Speaker, called him, but it is rather unusual on an Adjournment Debate after a Minister has made a speech for that particular Debate to continue. I want to make it clear that if it is suggested that the Minister should further reply, I shall feel very much inclined to object.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman says that he will object to the Minister speaking again. The Minister can only speak by leave of the House, and if anyone objects he cannot speak, so that is that.

7.42 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I am grateful for that introduction by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). Apparently I do not speak by leave of Mr. Speaker, but by leave of the hon. Member for Ipswich. However, even he will agree that this is a matter of the greatest public interest. The Parliamentary Secretary, with his usual enthusiasm, has made a lengthy but not to me very satisfactory explanation of the circumstances as he sees them. He has been ingenuous in a number of matters. He compared his experience in railway traffic with his experiences in the office which he now holds. The comparison was between the competition of the railways seeking to enlarge their profit and opportunity and, for example, the bus companies. In those circumstances he said quite rightly that it was legitimate for the one to do what it could do to get business from the other. But we are discussing not equal competitive units in an industry, but the power and authority of a great national corporation and an independent company. The hon. Gentleman has made observations which, while germane to the other circumstances, are quite inappropriate in these circumstances.
The Debate has revealed the extraordinary circumstance that the Government are, apparently, empowered to operate a fair wages clause which they are not operating. The Parliamentary Secretary reminded the House many times that the fair wages clause is not operated except in a few of the larger charter companies in that industry, but if that is so, the responsibility would be on the Parliamentary Secretary and not with the charter companies at all.

Mr. Lindgren: The responsibility so far as my Ministry is concerned only lies as and when those firms are employed on Government contracts. That equally applies to the firm and to the air corporations which are associated with the company. If a charter company pays unfair rates and asks its employees to work under unfair conditions, it is a direct matter for the trade unions and the company. We only come into it if, in fact, there is a Government contract.

Sir W. Darling: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for further amplifying the position because it makes it even more clear that I am right in what I have said. Will the hon. Gentleman disagree that a contract from the Overseas Food Corporation is a Government contract, and that it is being carried out by a charter company which is not paying wages in accordance with a fair wages clause? His recent explanation seems to me to bring the matter nearer to his door step. He is agreeing that the Government have had a contract with an independent air line which is not carrying out the fair wages clause. He is at fault beyond all admission.

Mr. Lindgren: This is a serious matter, and it ought to be cleared up as we go along. During his speech the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) quite rightly drew attention to the fact that the Overseas Food Corporation was told by my Minister that this firm was not considered to be operating Section 41 of the Act. The firm, I believe, stated that in their opinion they were operating it. They were not, and the trade unions took them to the industrial court and secured an industrial award against them. Surely the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) is not going to say that the industrial court award given against the firm, does not support the contention that they were not, in fact, honouring the fair wages clause and the conditions of employment?

Sir W. Darling: The Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised not to be so long in these explanations because the more he says, the more does he confirm that what I am saying is right. I repeat, the Overseas Food Corporation, a public body, were allowed to enter into a contract over which the Minister of Civil Aviation had direct control and

that they were not operating the fair wages clause. They were brought to the industrial court and a ruling was made against them. I accept that, but it still remains unchallengeable that the Ministry of Civil Aviation in this matter have been dilatory. They have been neglectful in. their duty, and the charge that the fair wages clause is not operated adequately in the charter companies goes by default.
I want as a member of the taxpaying public to make a more general observation. This particular company, Hunting Air Travel, Ltd., is a company which operates for profit. I am informed that it makes a good profit, and that goes to relieve the heavy burden of taxation which the Parliamentary Secretary and I among many others have to bear. The effect of the operations of this powerful monopoly, which the Parliamentary Secretary represents, is going to put Hunting Air Travel, Ltd. out of business, and that will add further to the burdens of taxation which we have to bear. Is that the policy to which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer lend their support? Is it in the public interest that companies contributing to national efficiency and making substantial contributions towards taxation are to be driven out of business by State monopolies which are making a loss? Is that the kind of finance the Parliamentary Secretary is inclined to endorse?
Finally, the conclusion that was thrust upon me by the very careful statement of my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) is that this will not be the first of these activities. In this House of Commons we are going to hear of independent traders, representing 80 per cent. of the industry of this country, being increasingly driven out of business by State monopolies, which are run at the expense of the taxpayer. What will be the effect of that 10 years from now, when companies like the Hunting company go out of business and there are no standards by which to judge? When the Government have driven every competitor out of the business what will be the result? Will there be a more efficient system? Is the Parliamentary Secretary claiming this and no more—that he wants to see out of business all the competent, private operators who at


present are making profits and are operating good public services? When these are removed from the industry then his own sweet will will prevail without any challenge. I fear that.
This issue of Hunting versus Ministry of Civil Aviation is probably, important though it may be, a minor one in the larger scheme of things. This is the battle of the very near future: whether monopolist corporations, established by the State, subsidised, organised and controlled by the State, and run by boards nominated by the political party in power, are to dominate our lives. This attack upon the Hunting company is the prelude to a series of attacks of a very much wider character. I speak with very real concern and alarm for this possibility which I do not think is very remote, when the British Overseas Airways Corporation will be the unchallenged master of the air, and, I fear, the unchallenged master of the pockets of the British taxpayer.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Before I start my relatively brief speech, it is well that we should clear up this question of what constitutes fair competition in the air. The Parliamentary Secretary lurched into a series of wild accusations against a large number of people, whom he is, nevertheless, very glad to see carrying out important business and whom the Government were very glad to use to carry out the Berlin airlift. The Parliamentary Secretary made his charges on the basis which we advance that the Hunting company did not lose this contract because of any question of unfair competition. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to Section 41 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, he will remember that the charter undertakings have either to observe the same conditions of employment as any one of the three Corporations, or to observe various other conditions which are under separate heads. The two relevant ones are that the terms and conditions:
(b) are in accordance, with an agreement for the time being in force between the undertaking and organisations representative of the persons employed; or
(c) are in accordance with any decision for the time being in force of a joint industrial council … 

I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary was suggesting that the Hunting Air Company, or Airwork, who were also a tendering party in this transaction, did not have an agreement for the time being in force between their company and their employees, for they most certainly did. Their employees were very glad to work for the two companies.

Mr. Lindgren: If that statement is correct, how does the hon. Gentleman account for B.A.L.P.A. taking the Hunting company, together with a whole host of other charter companies, to the industrial court and getting an award against them on the rates of pay and the conditions of employment of pilots? So far as the employees are concerned in some instances there are general engineering agreements that cover them. I am not so certain about some of the agreements, but some of the companies are not honouring the agreements. The main complaint about charter companies is that they are not paying their pilots, the fellows who are in command of the aircraft, the rates of pay to which they are entitled.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I imagine that BA.L.P.A. took the Hunting company to the industrial court because they wanted to improve their conditions of employment. At the present moment in a large nationalised industry—electricity—there is trouble. Would it be seriously suggested that the conditions of employment in electricity are bad simply because a body of people working in the industry want to improve their conditions? My charge is that for all the time for which the contracts run, and for which the new tender would have to be operated if the contract had been given, Hunting and Airwork were carrying out their undertakings and agreements made with the men working for them.
If the hon. Gentleman were to carry the story a stage further I should be grateful. Is he suggesting that the contract was not given to Hunting or to Airwork because of some contravention of Section 41 of the Civil Aviation Act 1946?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, the contract was not given, because a lower price was given by B.O.A.C. I should not have mentioned Section 41 but for the fact that the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) brought it out in his speech,


as he was entitled to do, that my Ministry had, during the period of the contract, called attention to Section 41. It was stated that they were not observing the proper conditions, and the firm had stated that this was untrue and unfair.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the price offered by Hunting had been competitive, despite the feeling in the back of the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary that they did not wholly observe Section 41, then they would have received the contract? The hon. Gentleman has virtually said that. That being so, I think we are on the same basis for the purposes of this Debate. It is our charge that the tender made by those two private companies was better than that made by B.O.A.C. and that the circumstances under which the contract was given to B.O.A.C. were wholly improper. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) has shown, it appears to be a story which ought to be cleared up if for nothing else than for the good name of two great Government Corporations. I am sorry that there is no representative here from the Minister of Food, who is seriously involved in this accusation.

Mr. Lindgren: They were not expecting the Debate at this time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, of course, and naturally the panic flight of the Minister of Food to East Africa would have prevented his own presence here; but we should have been helped if not encouraged if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food had been here. It is the Corporation under her ample wing whose conduct we are investigating today. I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been taking a leaf out of the Minister of Food's own book in not telling the whole story to the House. If the whole story were told from that Front Bench, another Government Department and a Government corporation would have been put in a very embarrassing position. My hon. Friend had ample justification for raising this story and I think that the House will agree with him, without regard to party, that he did it in an eloquent and moderate manner. I. will not go over the story but there are one or two aspects of it which I might mention.
What was the position? The Hunting Air Travel Company got a contract which

ran from November, 1948, to 31st October, this year, to transport a large number of people—many people might think that an incredible number—consisting of 2,500 workers for the Corporation and the contractors to or from East Africa. It was a contract subject to three months' notice. Hunting Air Travel did very well indeed. In a letter telling them that they were not to have the contract renewed the secretary of the Overseas Food Corporation wrote:
The manner in which the contract has beep performed has given every satisfaction to the corporation.
Surely that includes the conditions under which the contract has been operated? How could it have given every satisfaction to the Corporation or the Ministry of Food if the pilots or other workers had been treated harshly? The Hunting Air Travel Company, on 27th July, 1949—only last July—received a letter asking them to continue to carry out this contract until 31st January, 1950, in order to give the Overseas Food Corporation time to look at the matter again. They were to have an extension of the contract. Does that suggest that their conditions of employment were improper? The Overseas Food Corporation is rightly jealous of decent living conditions for Europeans and Africans alike, and they asked the company to continue to carry out the contract until 31st January next.
What in fact happened? Before 31st January, many things may well happen. On 29th July, 1949, the Hunting Air Travel were told by the Overseas Food Corporation that the contract would not be renewed. At the same time Airwork Limited, another highly reputable firm, who had asked what was the last date to tender and had had no answer to that request, received a telephone message to the effect that the contract was not going to be given to any private firm. They had tendered on the actual day, 29th July, when Hunting's received a letter saying that their tender was not to be accepted. The Minister talks as if this were a smooth and normal change-over, but it happened suddenly within two days of Hunting Air Travel being asked to carry on until 31st January, 1950. Those circumstances alone are exceedingly suspicious, and we are entitled to press here or in another place, for a fuller explanation.
The hon. Gentleman says that all this was done for the finest commercial reasons. The first charge we make is the story of how this has developed, and our second charge relates to his argument about commercial considerations. What have been the consequences? My hon. Friend has dealt very fully with the old successful contract of Hunting's, the one which it was said gave every satisfaction to the Corporation. Hunting's offer for the new contract was £59 18s. a seat at 100 per cent. load factor to Dar-es-Salaam, rising if the load factor diminished to 90 per cent. to a cost of £66. On the other hand, Airwork tendered in a different way. Their tender was never even considered. They got a telephone message on the very day they sent it out that it had all been settled between the two powerful Corporations before their tender was even considered. Their tender was £67 with no minimum number of passengers carried on each flight but a minimum number of passengers carried throughout the year.
There we have the two tenders—£66 at a 90 per cent. load factor from Hunting's and £67 from Airwork. B.O.A.C. tendered—I shall come in a moment briefly to the circumstances of how they tendered—£72 10s. to Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi. They got the contract. But their contract was more, leaving out altogether how they got it. It is a grossly improper story, but on the figures alone their contract was more. What has been the result to the hard-taxed people of Great Britain? B.O.A.C. are carrying these passengers at a loss.

Mr. Lindgren: No.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If they are not, what comes of all the calculations we tried to make about how these companies operate? Through the courtesy of the chairman of B.E.A., some of my hon. Friends and I have today been down to Northolt and have been given a clear picture of how the load factor, capacity ton-miles and other calculations are arrived at, and we have inspected the methods by which this is done. We understand that it costs B.O.A.C. to fly anybody in this House—any ordinary person—to Nairobi the sum of £122 10s. We arrived at that figure by using the machinery which the Minister, and. so

far as we know, the Corporation, uses. The average cost per capacity ton-miles, which is published, is 58.9d. Assuming 10 passengers to a ton, that gives a cost per capacity passenger-mile of 5.89d. Multiply this by the distance to Nairobi, and the figure is about £122 10s. But B.O.A.C. are taking these people for £72 10s. How can it possibly be argued that that is an economic proposition?
Then came the most extraordinary statement of all by the hon. Gentleman. They are losing £50 for everyone they take. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the more they take the more they make, but one of the tragedies about civil aviation is that at times the more one flies the more one loses. It cannot be pretended that if B.O.A.C. is going to lose £50 per head on every passenger from O.F.C. transported in this way it will end up in the black and not in the red.
There are two other considerations. A Colonial civil servant or a planter travelling back tomorrow from Dar-es-Salaam to London pays £146 to B.O.A.C. Sitting next to him may be an official of the Overseas Food Corporation whose company is paying £72 10s. The Colonial civil servant and the planter, as taxpayers, are subsidising the Overseas Food Corporation official beside them who is travelling for half their cost. What could be more likely to create bitterness against the Overseas Food Corporation in East Africa than this, and what is more certain than that if a large number of our fellow countrymen in East Africa could be allowed to fly home and back for £150, they would come home far more regularly than they do?

Mr. Harrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that in all contract passenger services, whether by air, water or rail, we find that there are reductions in the fare per head for each traveller?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, The misfortune here is that an aeroplane holds so few people. As my hon. Friend pointed out, if any more passengers are taken than the very small number—large in proportion to the undertaking but small in proportion to B.O.A.C.—for which they have contracted, they have to pay at the fantastic rate of £5,100 per plane. If the hon. Member will wait I shall come to that point, and no doubt be


will then try to trip me up on that point if he can.
The Parliamentary Secretary talked as if there were a large number of vacant seats on B.O.A.C. planes to East Africa and that this was a heaven-sent chance of filling them. That will not do. If there had been 2,500-odd vacant seats to and from Dar-es-Salaam in the last year it would have been no wonder if B.O.A.C. had been in the red, but we all know that it has not. The sequence has been this. The Corporation have, I believe, recently increased ten-fold the flights to East Africa, and have then got a lot of vacant seats. They have then gone to the charter company and said, "Look at our vacant seats," which they ought never to have created, and they have used that as an excuse to drive the charter companies out of this. A glance at Whitaker's Almanack will show that B.O.A.C. have been allowing one in every 200 of the white population of South Africa and one in every six of the population of East Africa to come home every year. They have saturated the market, and having done that, they use that as an excuse to take away the charter services.
My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the loss to the taxpayers—the not always inarticulate taxpayers, and taxpayers who may soon have an opportunity of expressing a decided opinion—is twofold. There is the loss in the way I have already shown because B.O.A.C. are losing on every flight, and there is also the loss to the Overseas Food Corporation, a loss which at my calculation is £16,000 and may be more, because they were not allowed to take the offer of Hunting's.
On this question of cost, my hon. Friend quite rightly said that by the contract between B.O.A.C. and the Overseas Food Corporation, B.O.A.C. had to provide 22 seats south with eight marginal and 15 seats north with six marginal per week. If more passengers want to be flown, then the Overseas Food Corporation may not charter a private plane to take them, but, under section 11 of the contract, the Corporation is bound to hire another plane from B.O.A.C. at a price of £5,100 for the return flight, or if there are only passengers for the south flight, then a charge of £5,100 for that alone. Even allowing for what the Government have done, is that fair to private operators? I

deny it, surely a field might have been left to those private operators over and above the number for whom B.O.A.C. contracted with her sister Corporation.
I now come to the last part of my argument. With my hon. Friend, I have tried to show what happened and I have tried to show the financial loss. How did this happen? My hon. Friend has told the story. The Parliamentary Secretary made no comment on it at all. If this had been settled by economic considerations we would not have raised it in the House because we agree that B.O.A.C. cannot be precluded from entering charter operations. But it was not settled on these economic considerations.
It is our definite charge that on 27th July, 1949, B.O.A.C. had a meeting with the Overseas Food Corporation; that on that day Sir Miles Thomas and Sir Leslie Plummer agreed to B.O.A.C. taking over the contracts; that B.O.A.C. officials were told by Sir Miles to visit the Corporation and work out the details; that, as my hon. Friend said, not knowing that Hunting had quoted at that moment, they quoted £80; that then a message came from Sir Leslie Plummer saying that if B.O.A.C. quoted a figure within 10 per cent. of Hunting's they were to get it; that two officers of the Overseas Food Corporation were then told to work out a figure at an 85 per cent. load factor, and that they came back and said it was £72 10s.; that the representatives of B.O.A.C. were then told that this was a figure which, if quoted, would secure them the contract—they were told this on the quiet; that the next day, 28th July, B.O.A.C. not unnaturally sent in a quotation of £72 10s. and on the following day, 29th July, Hunting's and Air-work were told they were not to have the contract.
That is the sorry story. My hon. Friend says quite rightly that it is not only the case that the Civil Aviation Act has been broken—for it has been broken in the most monstrous way—since the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Exchequer grant would not be used for the purpose of undercutting private operators and we believe that it has been used to break the Act. However, our charge tonight is much more than that. It is that a squalid deal has been arrived at between two Government Corporations which has


driven out of this business a highly reputable firm whose members pay taxes to the State to enable us to carry out these risky experiments. Because it is a monstrous breach of the Act and a reckless misuse of public money, I think my hon. Friend was justified in raising this quite scandalous story.

Orders of the Day — JAPAN (SUPREME COMMANDER'S POWERS)

8.12 p.m.

Mr. John Paton: I wish to open a subject that has no connection with the one we have just been discussing but is of great importance to this House and to this country. I refer to the nature and scope of the powers being exercised by General MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan. This is a subject which has aroused at different times during the last year or two great interest on all sides of the House, because it is well understood by hon. Members of all parties that the economic policies being pursued in Japan may have grievous consequences upon the trading position of this country and of the other Western countries unless they are carefully and closely watched.
Before I proceed to my argument, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there is one point I should clear up. Mr. Speaker was in some doubt as to whether this subject could properly be raised since he was not certain that there was any Ministerial responsibility for the powers and policies pursued by General MacArthur. I think I can convince you, Sir, as his Deputy, that we have an absolute and a direct responsibility. I believe that the doubt in the mind of Mr. Speaker arose from the fact that there are two bodies concerned with the direction of policy in Japan. One of them is a body called the Allied Council in Tokio, which is in its nature an advisory body and on which the British representation is not direct but through an Australian representative. The overriding authority with the fullest responsibility for the conduct of affairs in Japan is the Far East Commission sitting in Washington, consisting of direct representatives of all the 11 Allied Powers and including one direct representative of the British Government and, therefore, the responsible instrument of the Foreign Office. I hope, Sir, that in

putting those facts before you, I have resolved any doubts there may be as to this subject being completely in Order.
I have raised this matter at different times in the House both by question and, occasionally, in speeches. It assumed a new importance last month when, in answer to a series of Questions and supplementary questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave replies which filled with dismay most of us who understand the Far Eastern position. He seemed to make the case, which I have complained about in this House on numerous occasions, that the Foreign Office either believed it had no power to assert itself in Japan in relation to the policies being pursued by the Supreme Commander, or was unable to assert itself. If that, indeed, were the position, I should have the gravest disquiet as to the ultimate outcome for the trading affairs of this nation, because the importance of this subject arises from the possible consequences of the actions of the Supreme Commander upon our own trading concerns.
On 14th November I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs about the recent decision of General MacArthur, which was the combination of a long series of similar economic decisions, to abolish what are known as "floor" prices for Japanese exports, and it was from those Questions that this alarming situation was revealed. The term "floor prices" is applied to a system, which has obtained until recently, of applying minimum prices to Japanese exports for sale throughout the world, an attempt, of course, to protect the Western nations from the completely unfair competition with which we were faced before the war. The importance of this most recent decision of General MacArthur lies in its almost immediate consequences upon the trade of this country and the other Western trading nations.
Without pursuing that at any length, I ought to put the House in possession of at least two quotations which will illustrate how grave may be the possibility of unfair competition with our industries. The first is from a letter which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" written by Mr. F. S. Winterbottom, who has an extensive knowledge and experience of


the Lancashire textile industry. This is what he said:
Two months ago substantial stocks of grey cloth (U.S. cotton) from Japanese mills were being freely offered all over the world at prices averaging per pound of cloth approximately the calculation cost of only the yarn content to a British weaver…. Recalculation to allow for devaluation shows on an average Japanese cloth prices packed, made up, and delivered f.o.b. Kobe to be 10 per cent. above the United Kingdom manufacturer's cost of yarn only.
No wonder there was an immediate reaction of great anxiety, not only in Lancashire but also in the United States textile markets, as a result of that decision to abolish floor prices.
Now we know the explanation of prices of that kind, which no Western nation can ever hope to compete with no matter how we reorganise, no matter how much we may improve the efficiency of our industries. The explanation, of course, as most hon. Members probably know, is comparatively simple. Despite all that has been done in Japan since the surrender, despite the whole new apparatus of democracy, of welfare, of trade union and labour conditions and so on, the living costs of the Japanese are immensely below the living costs of his counterpart in Western industrial nations. No matter how he improves them from the low level of existing Japanese standards, they will remain in any event considerably below the standard of the Western peoples because of the wholly different pattern of Japanese traditional life.
The "Economist" put the point very well on 15th October last when it calculated that the wages of Japanese workers in the textile industries averaged £3 per month. Whatever qualifications may be necessary to arrive at a figure of that kind—and there are a number—nevertheless it shows very vividly exactly what this kind of thing may mean to us unless we take the necessary measures to ensure that it does not happen. It is in that context, therefore, that this latest decision of General MacArthur to abolish "floor" prices has its great importance.
I do not want tonight to discuss the merits or demerits of the decision to abolish "floor" prices. What I am concerned about is 'something which is even more important; that is, to try to put

the House in possession of the facts as I see them with regard to the powers and authority being exercised by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, General MacArthur. If we were to take at face value the answers to the Questions which are given in HANSARD of 14th November last, the House would be asked to accept the position that this country, which, as everybody knows but as often needs to be re-stated, poured out as much blood and treasure in the World War as did the United States, had no power whatever to affect fundamentally important policy decisions of the kind to which I have been referring.
In reply to a Question which I had put down, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told the House on 14th November:
The Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers has wide discretionary powers to deal with matters not specifically covered by Far Eastern policy decisions. The original decision to impose ' floor' prices was not a Far Eastern Commission decision, and it was within the discretion of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to abolish it.
I challenge entirely that statement. I am perfectly well aware that I am guilty of tremendous temerity in challenging what was, in fact, an answer drafted in the Foreign Office to a Question of this kind; but I make the challenge deliberately because, so far as the facts available to an ordinary Member are concerned, I think I am on unchallengeable ground. I do not accept for one moment this considered reply of the Foreign Office that this decision on "floor" prices was in its nature, or in the specific decision itself, one on which the Far Eastern Commission did not have authority and on which the Far Eastern Commission had no power to do anything.
In his reply to a supplementary question, the Under-Secretary took the matter even further. I do not, of course, want to pin him down too much on a spot reply to a supplementary question, but the importance of the supplementary reply comes from the fact that it continues the argument adduced in the prepared reply which I got in answer to my first Question. This is what the Under-Secretary said in the supplementary reply:
The Far Eastern Commission is not in a position to give directives to the Supreme Commander, nor has it given them, on this point. Until it did give such directives, he


would be free to act on his own initiative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1686–7.]
Well might the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) get up at that point and call the attention of the House to the very great importance of this reply. If it were true, it would mean that on all matters on which General MacArthur had not been specifically directed by the Far Eastern Commission, he would be in a position to exercise a completely arbitrary and unchallenged authority. I cannot accept that position for one moment, and I am sure that the Government or the Foreign Office cannot possibly try to sustain an impossible situation of that kind.
I propose now—with great daring, I know—to try to assist the Foreign Office to come to a correct conclusion, as I see it, on this very important matter. The real reason I have chosen at this point to intervene is to get upon the record of the House the nature of our objections to the actions of the Supreme Commander and to try to establish the authority by which we challenge him.
The first point to be considered is that the instrument by which the Far Eastern Commission was established was, of course, the Moscow Conference of December, 1945. I quote here from the communique issued from that Conference on behalf of the Allied Powers to show what was the nature of the powers of the Far Eastern Commission which it was setting up and to show further, not only the nature and scope of the powers of that Commission, but the limitations of the United States State Department, and to show, therefore, the limitations and restrictions applying to the actions and conduct of the Supreme Commander himself.
The second Moscow Conference decisions with regard to the Far Eastern Commission, say in Article II with regard to functions:
1. To formulate the policies, principles and standards of conformity with which the fulfilment by Japan of its obligations under the terms of surrender may be accomplished.
That, of course, shows at once that the Far Eastern Commission was the authoritative policy-making body for the conduct of affairs in Japan until a peace treaty had been drafted and agreed between the

various Powers. Then follows paragraph 2:
To review, on the request of any member, any directive issued to the Supreme Commander for the Allied. Powers or any action taken by the Supreme Commander involving policy decisions within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Here, again, is demonstrated not only the authority of the Far Eastern Commission itself, but the right of any member nation in that Commission at any time to ask for a review of any policy adopted by the Supreme Commander.
In paragraph 1 of Article III is a statement of the powers of the American State Department to give directions to the Supreme Commander. It says:
The United States Government shall prepare directives in accordance with policy decisions of the Commission and shall transmit them to the Supreme Commander through the appropriate United States agency.
In that paragraph, again, it is clearly established that the United States Department, in its contact with the Supreme Commander, General MacArthur, acts as the agent of the Far Eastern Commission, and only in certain matters defined in paragraph 3 of the same Article has the United States any power to initiate direct action with the Supreme Commander. It says:
The United States Government may issue interim directives to the Supreme Commander pending action by the Commission whenever urgent matters arise not covered by policies already formulated by the Commission…
So that here, surely, we have in these paragraphs of the instrument which I have been quoting of the second Moscow Conference, the proof positive that the authoritative control over all policies in Japan operated through the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers reposes in the Far Eastern Commission composed of the representatives of all the Allied Powers, and nowhere else.
Turning to economic policy matters, I wish to bring to the attention of the House another instrument which again clearly establishes the responsibility of the Far Eastern Commission for the nature of the policies being conducted by the Supreme Commander. A basic economic policy for Japan was defined by the Far Eastern Commission in a document which is dated 19th June, 1947, and entitled "Basic post-surrender Policy for Japan." In Part IV of that document,


entitled "Economic," we have in Article VI a section dealing with international trade and financial relations. In paragraph 2 it is stated:
Control is to be maintained over all imports and exports of goods and foreign exchange and financial transactions. The Far Eastern Commission shall formulate the policies and principles governing exports from and imports to Japan. The Far Eastern Commission will formulate the policies to be followed in the exercise of these controls.
I suggest to the House that it is completely impossible for the Foreign Office, in face of these instruments, to which all the Allied Powers are party, to continue to maintain that our powers in relation to General MacArthur are so limited and truncated that we cannot even challenge a policy like the "floor" prices policy which so gravely menaces our national trading interests.
I am very sorry that it has not been possible to have in the House tonight the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was responsible for the the answers I have quoted of 14th November. I got in touch with him and he explained to me that because of the regrettable indisposition of the Foreign Secretary, an indisposition which I know all sides of the House will deplore, he was unable to come here tonight at short notice owing to the extra duties thrown upon him. We must at once accept that, but it is a little unfortunate that he has not been here to listen to the attack which I have been making on statements for which he had such a direct responsibility. I hope, however, that all I have said on this very important matter will be conveyed to him by my hon. Friend, who I understand is likely to say a word or two in reply, in order that this matter which I have taken the opportunity to raise tonight may again be reconsidered by the Foreign Office and decision taken that will lead to a drastic and effective change of policy.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT TRADE (DOLLAR COUNTRIES)

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: It is of the nature of things that in an Adjournment Debate of this kind we travel the world somewhat. I wish to take the House away from Japan right across the Atlantic and to discuss, not at some length but in

some detail, the whole problem of trade with the dollar countries, particularly with Canada. I may say to my Canadian friends that I do this with some delight as an old friend of Canada. I fought with the Canadian Corps of 1916 and 1917 and was at Vimy with them. Now I am pleased to know that as a result of the efforts which some of us are making here, Canada is willing to bat with us to promote and stimulate trade from this country to Canada with the aim of keeping our balance of payments in order.
I do not think I shall be out of Order, and I am sure that the House will welcome it, if I make some reference to our general export effort with which my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade has been so intimately connected. I suggest that the tremendous achievement of our export trade since the termination of hostilities is not sufficiently appreciated either in this country or in the world as a whole.
In 1948 we had in fact an overall balance of trade. I agree that we were out of balance in respect of the dollar countries, but having virtually abandoned our export trade during the war on account of conditions attaching to Lend-Lease and for the purpose of bringing the war to a satisfactory conclusion. I suggest that it is a matter for tremendous congratulation to everyone concerned in the export trade of the country that we achieved an overall balance in 1948, more especially when it is considered that, as a result of the year in which we stood alone, we sold up our overseas investments to an amount which corresponded to about the value of £150 million a year of free imports, in terms of pre-war monetary values. That meant in fact that in 1948 we had to export to the value of £300 million in order to balance that, on top of which we had in 1948 also to deal with at least £200 million of unrequited exports.
Those two items add up to £500 million, which means that we had to achieve exports of £500 milion before we started to pay for anything which we paid for by goods before the outbreak of war. When it is considered that our total exports prior to 1949 were £470 million a year, I submit that it is a tremendous achievement on the part of everyone concerned that we achieved an overall balance in 1948. Now, on top


of that, we have a situation arising out of devaluation which means that in order to compensate for the depreciated value of the £ we have to export about £48 million a year of goods more to the dollar countries before we start paying for any goods which we imported from those countries prior to devaluation.
I am raising this point particularly tonight because I wish to emphasise the importance of trade with Canada. Without casting any severe criticism on the comments that have been made in the Press and elsewhere and in public speeches by responsible people about the possibility of closing the gap in trade with the United States, I suggest that it is most unlikely that we shall make any substantial inroad into the dollar gap by increasing trade with the United States. Our trade with the U.S. amounted to about £52 milion in 1948. If we double that we shall have done very well, but when we have doubled it about half of that increase will be accounted for in compensation for devaluation.
I wish to make one or two general observations. It seems to me that there is a fundamental difficulty of which sufficient note is not taken. It is that the United States has a population of about 140 million and produces food for over 300 million, whereas we in this country have a population of 50 million and produce food for about 30 million. Somehow the whole price system has got out of gear, and it is to this point that I particularly wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend. In 1938–39 we used to pay 4s. a bushel for wheat imported from across the Atlantic. Today the price of wheat is about 2.25 dollars a bushel from U.S. We are paying in effect about 16s. a bushel and we are constantly being told to get our prices down. The cost of production depends very much on the cost of labour all through the productive machine, and if the price of the food which goes into the bellies of the people who do the work increases by four times, it is extremely unlikely that we shall get prices down. The fact is that we are at the present moment suffering from what might be called American inflation—and that is all there is to it.
I wish the Board of Trade would do something—which the Chancellor

of the Exchequer will not do—in the case of our best dollar producer, which is whisky. I do not believe that people realise that America pays only about 10 per cent. more for the whisky she imports from this country than she did before the war. She pays only twice as much for capital goods if she ever wishes to buy any—which she does not. J suggest for my hon. Friends' information that it would be a good thing if we doubled the price of whisky, even if the sales fell by half, because we should get just as many dollars and we should have more whisky for ourselves. That would please everybody, except my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, West, (Mr. J. Hudson), who does not take that same point of view. I do not believe our whisky sales in. America would fall; they are only 2 per cent. of the whole whisky consumption in America. I believe that is a bit of nonsense to argue that sales will fall off. I should like to find out what the facts are between the distillers of this country and the distributive trade in America which are keeping the price down. I believe they find it more profitable to make profits over there than over here.
That is only one side of it. There is, of course, the gold issue, on which I am not going to speak tonight, because I made a speech about it a fortnight ago. I will emphasise to my hon. Friend, as I endeavoured to do to the Economic Secretary—and incidentally got him so cornered that he had no reply—that it is fantastic that we are tied to gold through Bretton Woods with the dollar at a fixed price. While we have to pay four times as much for wheat from America, America pays only 70 per cent. more for the gold which she takes from the British Commonwealth. If we are to have a fixed currency, for heaven's sake let it be a proper one and not one fixed on the fictitious price of gold.
Now I come to the main point of my discussion tonight and that is our trade with Canada. I do not propose to castigate the Canadians that, per head of population, they buy about 11 times as much dollar goods as we do in this country per head of population. That is a mathematical fact which anybody can work out. Canada is next door to the United States, and it is only natural and economic that they should buy most of their manufactured goods in that direc-


tion. On the other hand, the fact is that Canada depends for her prosperity largely on her farmers and the food which she produces and sells to us. We have this astonishing position, that whereas in 1948 Canada purchased 1,806 million dollars worth of goods from the United States, she sent only 1,500 million dollars worth of goods to the United States, and there was an out-of-balance of 306 million dollars which had to be made good, presumably out of the sterling-dollar pool.
That is only a bit of it. If we look at it the other way, we are the best consumer of Canada's crops. The Canadians do not sell wheat to America. In 1948 Canada sold to us £217 million worth of goods and we sent to Canada in exchange only £76 million, and there was an out-of-balance of about £141 million which, at the ruling price of the dollar, was 560 million dollars. I have been at some pains to look into this matter of trade with Canada and really to find out what are the possibilities. I urge my hon. Friend, if he needs any urging—and he has had a bit from me from behind the scenes—not to be misled into believing that we shall close the dollar gap by any other means than by intensified trade with Canada.
When I say that, I mean an intensified trade in two particular classes of goods, namely, coal and capital goods—iron and steel products. Anybody who takes the trouble to check the statistics which have been produced, both by our Government and the Canadian Government, can prove these figures for himself. We can ignore the rest of the trade. We may do a bit of tiddling about with a few motor cars and the rest of it, for just so long as the Americans allow us to do it and for no longer, because the Americans will make smaller cars just when it suits them and the export of motor cars will then go phut. The two trades in which we can make a substantial step forward towards closing the dollar gap are in shipping coal to Canada and and in iron and steel products.
In 1948 Canada bought from the United States 6 million tons of coal at an average price of 32 dollars a ton. At the same time she purchased from us only something of the order of 50,000 tons as compared with her average pre-war amount of 1 million tons a year. I do not know anything about coalmining, but

quite clearly here is an opportunity. We know that freights across the Atlantic are cheaper than freights from north to south of the American continent by rail, and there is no reason why, if we can get the coal, we should not ship at least 3 million tons of coal to Canada, which would close the gap by approximately 100 million dollars. But coalmining is not my trade, and I do not want to spend the time of the House in discussing how it might be done.
My trade is the heavy engineering industry, or iron and steel production as we may call it. It will be found that in 1948 the totals purchased by Canada from the United States and ourselves were in the order of £196 million. I think the House will be astonished to learn that of that £196 million only £13 million came from this country. In other words, Canada purchased from the United States £183 million worth of iron and steel products—including raw materials, I grant that, but probably the manufactured capital goods were £100 million to £120 million—and she purchased only £13 million from us. Here is a tremendous market. How exactly it is to be entered by this country is another matter, and a point which I do not propose to discuss now.
I wish to emphasise that Canada is what we might call, for want of a better term, "on the up and up." Canada has a vast development programme. I worked out today, when discussing the matter with somebody in the office of the Canadian High Commissioner, that in the next few years Canada proposes to spend not less than £7,600 million on capital expenditure. In 1949—the year just ending—they have already estimated to spend 800 million dollars. Having done that, in the first seven months of this year they have a budget surplus of 337 million dollars. They are in a marvellous position and if we are to balance our trade at all we must continue to help Canada to become more and more prosperous.
This analysis shows what I have stated—that the two great possible inroads which will really make a substantial contribution to closing the dollar gap are the export of coal and the export of capital goods. It is very difficult to calculate just what that increase in the export of capital goods means in the way of increased production in this country. Anyone who studies the figures will find that


it is very difficult, but I put it at a rough estimate—and my guess is probably - just as bad as anybody else's—that if we are to close this gap by selling, say, another £100 million of capital goods to Canada, then it means increasing our output of capital goods in this country by something of the order of 20 per cent.—something of that order in the machinery trade.
It is a big job. Again, I will not divert my hon. Friend from the subject matter on which he is going to reply to discuss ways and means of how that should be done. What I particularly appeal to him to do is to impress upon those companies and concerns which are capable of making this contribution that now is the time to take action. It is hopeless to diddle-daddle about and, because we are full of orders which we have got as a result of a big demand, apparently arising out of the release of sterling balances, merely to say that this Canadian trade must stand by until such time as we have worked off our backlog. That just will not do.
I should like to hear the Government, or if not the Government then some responsible body in the trade, declare to the manufacturers of heavy machinery and capital goods, that they should, regardless of what their obligations may be to their customers, set aside at least five, if not ten per cent. of their production in 1950 for shipment across the water to Canada. The Canadians are willing to play. The Canadian Government have taken steps which will ensure a fair measure of opportunity to British manufacturers and, of course, we all know that as a result of devaluation there is a tremendous price advantage to the Canadians which gives us a very big pull.
There are one or two other matters which I hope the hon. Gentleman will emphasise. First, delivery must be prompt. Secondly, when we do get there we must bear in mind that both the Canadian distributor and the Canadian consumer have been utterly spoiled by American efficiency—much more so than anybody realises. We must ensure that proper service is provided from the word "go" and that full and adequate spare parts are available for all the machinery which is transported across the Atlantic. I know that arrangements have been made for facilities through the Export Credits

Guarantees Department so that this can be financed and both machinery and stock can be ready for quick sale. Facilities have also been arranged for spare parts on the same footing.
It is necessary, of course, to emphasise that the period that matters in Canada is immediately after the freeze breaks down, namely, about the end of March. It is urgent that steps should be taken now by manufacturers so that the goods are there when the break takes place. Before I close I wish to emphasise to my hon. Friend that he will be doing this country a very good turn if he will bring the point home quite specifically to the manufacturers of heavy machinery that here is a really great opportunity. As I said earlier, the Canadians are willing to play. The price situation is favourable and the prospects in the country are tremendous. The duty of the manufacturers to the whole country is to see that this opportunity is not lost. It is their duty to see that a really serious contribution of not less, in my opinion, than £100 million a year—or 300 million in Canadian dollars—from the heavy industries alone is made towards the closing of the dollar gap.

8.55 p.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): The subject of trade with the dollar countries—and particularly with Canada—cannot be ventilated too often. It is a matter of vital importance in order that this country of ours can again recover its position in world trade. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend would not wish me to reiterate a good deal of what has already been said in the Press and in the Debate, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, so I will endeavour to reply to the points which my hon. Friend made and hope that that will suffice.
It is true that, in 1948, we had an overall balance of trade, but we did not have as much trade with the dollar countries as was necessary to enable us to get economic viability. It is comforting to know that, until October -of this year, our average export above the 1938 figure was 49 per cent., as compared with 34 per cent. for the similar period in 1948. My hon. Friend made reference, quite rightly I think, to the suggestion that, if the prices of food and raw materials are


going to be kept high, it will be very difficult for us, as consumers of those goods, to be able to reflect in our production cheaper capital goods or cheaper manufacturing goods which other countries require. But, having said that, one has to take note of the fact that the laws of supply and demand inevitably operate. Because of the devastation caused by the war, there are shortages of foodstuffs and raw materials, and the demand is so great that it is inevitable that prices will remain high. But with better harvests, with the recovery in the Far East, in Europe and elsewhere from the ravages of war, it is to be hoped that the prices of both food and raw materials will show a drop from what is, I agree, a very high price.
I am quite sure that my hon. Friend did not intend to say that, in the case of the Canadians, they were after the highest possible prices. It is only fair to say that, in the case of wheat, they have quoted us at below the world prices.

Mr. Stokes: I was talking about United States wheat.

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend also went on to show why we should get the maximum possible prices for some of the goods, in particular whisky. Knowing who are the main producers of that commodity, I should have thought that Scotsmen would have been keen to get the highest possible price and would not need encouraging to do so, but it is not a Government matter or one in which we can in any way interfere. I am quite sure that the trade as a whole does what it can to obtain that, while retaining the maximum goodwill. No doubt they will take note of the point which my hon. Friend has made, but, so far as the Government are concerned, there is nothing we can do. I have no doubt that the people concerned will look after their business in the best way they can with a view to getting the best possible prices for their goods.
I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me to fall into the trap which he apparently laid for another of my colleagues. I am not half as competent to deal with the subject, and I shall therefore pass on to the other item which was much more the concern of my Department. That is the export of a number of goods, and particularly coal and capital

goods, to Canada. In the case of Canada, we are exporting all the coal that we can, but they want a specialised type of coal. They want anthracite from South Wales. I think the figure is something like 70 per cent. of our availability of the type they need, which is exported to Canada. In the case of other coal, the extent to which we can supply them depends on the needs of home industry for the production of goods that Canada must have and our obligations to other countries with whom we have connections, but we shall be prepared to consider any opportunity that will enable us to earn more dollars.

Mr. Stokes: Can my hon. Friend tell us the tonnage of coal?

Mr. Bottomley: I really could not give an answer offhand, but I shall see that my hon. Friend receives one.
With regard to capital goods, that is another point which is emphasised time and again. We want to send as many as we can to Canada, and I like the suggestion that manufacturers should set themselves a target. I hesitate to suggest that it should be made public, because we have had some experience of setting a target for the cotton industry, and, in that case, we found that, when it was known that a particular quantity was coming, they said "We know that that amount is coming; we can more or less choose our prices." I think, as my hon. Friend agrees, that that is a thing we have to watch. But it is a useful suggestion, and I hope that ideas of this kind will be circulated among men actively engaged in the industry. I know from my hon. Friend's association: with our Department that his undertaking is really doing a good job. If all would follow that standard we might get that, percentage without any suggestion from a ministerial authority.
I do not want to deal with the Export Credit Guarantees Department. I think industry is aware of all that has been done, but I would re-emphasise what has been said already, that it is necessary that there should be a prompt delivery of our goods. I ought to say that we have the fullest co-operation of our friends in Canada and in the United States. May I quote a word or two uttered by the Canadian Prime Minister? He said:
It is very strongly in our national interest to encourage imports of British goods into. Canada.


I could also quote from what was said by the Finance Minister who uttered similar sentiments. May I conclude by saying that in the case of the United States, the Secretary of State, Mr. Acheson, has also indicated in similar words how necessary it is that the United States should import goods from this country. If trade is to flow and the world is to be free from these constant economic troubles it is necessary for those two countries to import our goods as it is necessary for us to import theirs in order to live.

Mr. Stokes: I should like to ask my hon. Friend one question on a point with which he did not deal. Will he cause some instructions to be given that notices which go out to the Press are not so misleading? I think he will agree with me that on reading

the Press for the past few days, one gets the impression that we made an inroad into the dollar gap in November. Actually, we earned one million dollars less in exports to the United States and Canada in November this year compared with the same period last year. In other words, the total was 44 million last year and 43 million this year. That sort of thing does us no good. Will my hon. Friend see that his Department puts over the propaganda in such a way that people realise that what we want is double that figure a month?

Mr. Bottomley: I think that the figures we have given show that, if read carefully.

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes past Nine o'Clock.